Christianity is a grotesque blight!

[MarkCorrigan]

I would personally argue that religion IS bad in general, and if you look at the holy books in specific I would argue that the Bible is a vile book as an example.

That doesn't mean all Christians are vile or bad of course, just that the apparent core book of their beliefs is and those that aren't ignore the nastier commands.

 

[Thermal]

I would personally argue that religion IS bad in general, and if you look at the holy books in specific I would argue that the Bible is a vile book as an example.

That doesn't mean all Christians are vile or bad of course, just that the apparent core book of their beliefs is and those that aren't ignore the nastier commands.

I'd look at it as religion itself is not necessarily bad, but that it's origins were from a rougher time and place, and as long as the religion moves with the times, it can be a net benefit for it's followers. The flip side is that if people get all anal about it, it can be used to channel hate and bigotry.

Most Christians I know are sweet, kind, generous people. They do good works in the name of their god, whether the recipients are Christian or not.

I don't think our intrepid OP has met many Christians, or interacted much, and relies on online reverse hate mongering instead of flesh and blood experience.

 

[Leumas]

I would personally argue that religion IS bad in general, and if you look at the holy books in specific I would argue that the Bible is a vile book as an example.

Yes... indeed!!!

That doesn't mean all Christians are vile or bad of course...

• "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." ― Steven Weinberg

That doesn't mean all Christians are vile or bad of course...

And not all the priests and bishops etc. are bad either... but the fact that there are... even a few... means that the religions is a hoax.

People in 2023 who continue to fall for hoaxes that have been exposed over and over and over and throughout the ages... are pathetic... nice maybe... but fools definitely.

...just that the apparent core book of their beliefs is and those that aren't ignore the nastier commands.

And ignoring the alleged word of one's espoused god... is... by the tenets of the very religion they are trying to whitewash.... evil.

And this Cognitive Dissonance causing paradox must be causing a lot more than just Cognitive Dissonance.

 

[Leumas]

Religion is not like a box of apples where one rotten apple does not mean throwing the whole box away.

Why not, actually? What is special about religion that it merits collective guilt?

(1) it is not collective guilt

(2) it is guilt of the alleged deity that the religion espouses and in which the believers in the religion believe

(3) when the deity is a vomitus apple... the whole religion is a disgusting rot... and the followers of the cult are swallowing rotten filth

(4) for example priests doing vile crimes and the deity not stopping or punishing it makes the deity a rotten sordid monster... and the whole cult a rotten perfidy.

Religion is supposed to be from a divine source with a divine overseer... if the divine overseer allows mold to permeate through his loaf then he is neither divine nor an intelligent overseer.

Who are you to dictate this standard? Mold has a place in the world, also.

(1) The mold is a metaphor for the priests doing vile crimes... who like the mold permeate throughout the bread some seen and mostly unseen, hidden inside... rendering the whole loaf poisonous and disgusting

(2) do criminal priests have a "place in the world, also"?

Maybe it is not quite fair to never eat again in any certain restaurant franchise ever again because I saw one cockroach crawling over the table I was sitting at poised to eat my food.

But my revulsion at that sight was visceral and innate... and just the sign of the franchise evokes that revulsion all over again.

... What you are not entitled to is claiming that this whole restaurant chain is infested with cockroaches.

(1) the restaurant is a metaphor for the religion

(2) the cockroaches are a metaphor for vile priests

However... Christianity and Islam et al are not a FRANCHISE... or are they?

Depends on your viewpoint. I see many religions as franchises.

Yes... so do I... which ought to make any rational person pause for thought.

If the god of the "franchise" is not able to avoid or even clean off the cockroaches in its branches then it is not a god.

That is a rule you are imposing.

(1) it is not a rule... it is a logical inference from the FACTS

(2) if the espoused deity of a cult is unable or unwilling to stave off the turpitude of said deity's alleged priests from performing heinous acts... then the said deity is either approving of the crimes or unable to prevent them... or... not real.... ergo the cult is a grotesque hoax.

And if one continues to go "eat" at the "franchise" of a pathetic non-god who cannot evade cockroaches crawling all over the "food"... then one is a pathetic wretched fool.

See, now you are generalizing. All you saw was a single cockroach, in a single restaurant. Now you claim all the restaurants are crawling with the critters.

(1) the cockroaches are a metaphor for vile priests

(2) how many diocese have had scandals in how many countries with how many victims... not to mention the Anglican Church ones and allllll the other risible branches and cults of Christianity's tentacles.

(3) so it is not "a single cockroach, in a single restaurant"... is it?

(4) and those swarms of cockroaches in numerous franchises of the global corporation, are just what was revealed in newspapers... imagine how many we have not read about because of the bishops' CONCERTED machinations to conceal and sweep under the altar cloth all the other cockroaches crawling in and out of the walls and onto the altars and into the wafers of the various branches all over the world.

 

[Leumas]

I'd look at it as religion itself is not necessarily bad,

But Christianity is bad...

A religion that says criminals are more welcome in heaven than their victims... and that if the victims do not believe in the religion they are not welcome at all... but rather will be consigned to eternal torture... is bad.

A religion that says that one must hate one's parents and children for the sake of the religion... is not just a bad religion... rather it is a heinous cult.

but that it's origins were from a rougher time and place,

So from a benighted epoch fabricated by ignorant brigands.

and as long as the religion moves with the times,

So a continually adapting hoax.

it can be a net benefit for it's followers.

A slithering wriggling hoax is not a benefit to any rational person... and not even irrational ones either.

The flip side is that if people get all anal about it, it can be used to channel hate and bigotry.

Yes... which is what has been the history of Christianity right from its onset... and throughout the annals of its existence... as evinced by history and current affairs.

Most Christians I know are sweet, kind, generous people. They do good works in the name of their god, whether the recipients are Christian or not.

I am glad that is your experience... but... what about those who are not part of the "most"?

My experience has been like yours too... most... but the ones whom I had the misfortune to interact with and who did vile evil things in the name of their god have done more harm than all the good done by the most who do the good in the name of the same god.

I don't think our intrepid OP has met many Christians, or interacted much,

And you would be wrong in your thinking.

I live in America in the Bible Belt... and have lived and worked many years in Australia and England and Spain and France (less)... to mention a few.

and relies on online reverse hate mongering instead of flesh and blood experience.

Assuming things you have no way of knowing is not prudent.

 

[Foster Zygote]

People in 2023 who continue to fall for hoaxes that have been exposed over and over and over and throughout the ages... are pathetic... nice maybe... but fools definitely.

So the Reverend Ed Trevors is an admirably sublime, deliciously spiritual grand gentleman - an estimable chap - an eagle soaring high in the fresh air of mental elevation, above the stench and putridity of the human cesspit... and a pathetic, evil fool.

The truth is that most religious faithful don't know enough to break out of the indoctrination they've been immersed in their whole lives. They only know what their religious leaders tell them, and their critical thinking skills have been underdeveloped, even deliberately sabotaged. Not to mention that most of them are conditioned to feel moral guilt at the mere act of questioning their faith's teachings.

It's easy to pat yourself on the back for not having those irrational beliefs, but it strikes me as a bit like someone making a decent living asking why the poor don't just stop being poor, or someone asking why a battered spouse doesn't just divorce her husband.

 

[junkshop]

...That doesn't mean all Christians are vile or bad of course...

• "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." ― Steven Weinberg

I have no idea who this Weinburg chap is, and without any explanation of how he reached this conclusion I can give it no weight. It is nothing more than the unsupported opinion of a stranger on the internet.

...That doesn't mean all Christians are vile or bad of course...

And not all the priests and bishops etc. are bad either... but the fact that there are... even a few... means that the religions is a hoax.

People in 2023 who continue to fall for hoaxes that have been exposed over and over and over and throughout the ages... are pathetic... nice maybe... but fools definitely.

I can only assume that the excised portions of this string of words (indicated by the use of ellipses) were fundamental to the coherence of the text, and their omission was unitentional.

 

[junkshop]

I resented being made to go to Sunday School as a child.


I got over it.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

But Christianity is bad...

A religion that says criminals are more welcome in heaven than their victims... and that if the victims do not believe in the religion they are not welcome at all... but rather will be consigned to eternal torture... is bad.

A religion that says that one must hate one's parents and children for the sake of the religion... is not just a bad religion... rather it is a heinous cult.

[rest of post snipped]

Is there a reason why you didn't refer to the "hate your parents" quote in context?

From https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke 14&version=NKJV

Luke 14: 25-32
Leaving All to Follow Christ
25 Now great multitudes went with Him. And He turned and said to them, 26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. 27 And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. 28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it— 29 lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30 saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish’? 31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace. 33 So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.

You left out the " ... he cannot be My disciple." That changes your meaning.

 

[Leumas]

Is there a reason why you didn't refer to the "hate your parents" quote in context?

There are two places where Jesus tells people to hate their dearest and nearest for his sake... one where the cult members must hate their parents and even their lives.

The second context is this one... why did you not refer to this context as well??

Christ Brings Division (Matthew 10:34-39)
“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

This context also proves that Jesus wants people to hate their kin and kith for his sake and love him more than their nearest and dearest.. or else they are not worthy.

This is a typical cultic technique... to separate the cult's victims from their loved ones and make them love the cult leader instead.

Ah... and do not forget Matthew 8:22 where he tells one of his cult followers to leave his father unburied to go follow him in the cult.

And do not forget Matthew 19:12 too where for the sake of his kingdom he wants people to even hate and mutilate their bodies.

Christianity is a hideous sordid cult!!!

 

[Leumas]

Edited by Darat: 

Moderated thread.

The truth is that most religious faithful don't know enough to break out of the indoctrination they've been immersed in their whole lives. They only know what their religious leaders tell them, and their critical thinking skills have been underdeveloped, even deliberately sabotaged. Not to mention that most of them are conditioned to feel moral guilt at the mere act of questioning their faith's teachings.

Great... so you agree with me that they are

... pathetic... nice maybe... but fools definitely.

Thanks for agreeing.

However... have those people ever heard of the vile crimes and lecherous acts and other sordidness of "their religious leaders" on TV or read about them in the newspapers or seen the victims amongst them?

If not then they are not just pathetic fools... they are blind morons too.

And if they have heard of all that and are still following "what their religious leaders tell them"... then they are not nice at all... but still pathetic blind fools.

It's easy to pat yourself on the back for not having those irrational beliefs, but it strikes me as a bit like someone making a decent living asking why the poor don't just stop being poor, or someone asking why a battered spouse doesn't just divorce her husband.

The poor are still poor because of the heinousness of humanity... and if there is a Jesus for real... then also his hideousness too... the obscene wealth of the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church and all the other risible tentacles of the Christian corporation... alone... could wipe out poverty in all countries with a majority Christian population... not to mention the FALSE promise Jesus made

Matthew 6:25-33 “Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? ... will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? “Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ ... But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you..

A battered wife doesn't just divorce her husband because of psychological diseases like the Stockholm Syndrome or numerous others.

And there is another reason too... Jesus and the Catholic and Anglican churches and almost all the other tentacles of the corporation prohibit divorce... so maybe she is a pathetic fool who believes "what her religious leaders tell her".

A battered wife syndrome is in fact very much akin to the syndrome of cult followers who continue to follow the cult leader despite him abusing them as well their nearest and dearest.

 

[Leumas]

I have no idea who this Weinburg chap is, and without any explanation of how he reached this conclusion I can give it no weight. It is nothing more than the unsupported opinion of a stranger on the internet.

From here

Steven Weinberg was an American theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate in physics for his contributions with Abdus Salam and Sheldon Glashow to the unification of the weak force and electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles.

He held the Josey Regental Chair in Science at the University of Texas at Austin, where he was a member of the Physics and Astronomy Departments. His research on elementary particles and physical cosmology was honored with numerous prizes and awards, including the 1979 Nobel Prize in physics and the 1991 National Medal of Science. In 2004, he received the Benjamin Franklin Medal of the American Philosophical Society, with a citation that said he was "considered by many to be the preeminent theoretical physicist alive in the world today." He was elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Britain's Royal Society, the American Philosophical Society, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Weinberg's articles on various subjects occasionally appeared in The New York Review of Books and other periodicals. He served as a consultant at the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, president of the Philosophical Society of Texas, and member of the Board of Editors of Daedalus magazine, the Council of Scholars of the Library of Congress, the JASON group of defense consultants, and many other boards and committees.

I can only assume ....

Your assuming is definitely not correct.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

There are two places where Jesus tells people to hate their dearest and nearest for his sake... one where the cult members must hate their parents and even their lives.

The second context is this one... why did you not refer to this context as well??


This context also proves that Jesus wants people to hate their kin and kith for his sake and love him more than their nearest and dearest.. or else they are not worthy.

This is a typical cultic technique... to separate the cult's victims from their loved ones and make them love the cult leader instead.

Ah... and do not forget Matthew 8:22 where he tells one of his cult followers to leave his father unburied to go follow him in the cult.

And do not forget Matthew 19:12 too where for the sake of his kingdom he wants people to even hate and mutilate their bodies.

Christianity is a hideous sordid cult!!!

The reason that I didn't refer to the second context is that you did not cite it. And yes, let's look at it Matthew 10:34-39 in context.

In the verses, I see quotation marks. Jesus is quoting someone/something. Matthew and the KJV/NKJV do not refer to what Jesus is quoting. But I see that there is a footnote for verse 35 which you did not include.

35 For I have come to ‘set[j] a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’;

The footnote gives an alternate translation/definition of "set".

j: Matthew 10:35 alienate a man from

So I don't see the word "hate" there.

You bring up Matthew 8:22. Why? The dead are dead. They have no problems. It's the living that have problems.

Matthew 19:12 is the verse about making yourself a eunuch.

Jesus Teaches on Celibacy
11 But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: 12 For there are [c]eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”

*Footnote c: Matthew 19:12 Emasculated men

Hey, I don't accept it. Not for me. I'm keeping my testicles. What's the problem?

You claim the Bible says one thing, but quite often it doesn't.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

From here







Your assuming is definitely not correct.

That would be an argument from incorrect authority then.

Afterall, Linus Pauling was a multiple Nobel Laureate who believed that megadosing on vitamins would cure cancer. Does that mean it will? No.



You do understand that we here agree with the idea that these religions are false, right? You're not arguing with church going Christian fundies on this forum. We're mostly atheists. We just think that your arguments, even if we agree with your conclusions, are flawed and your method of communication is terrible.

 

[junkshop]

From here...

Ok, now I know who he is.

His opinion remains unsupported.

Your assuming is definitely not correct.

Why all the ellipses then?

 

[Leumas]

That would be an argument from incorrect authority then.

(1) No it would not... it is not even an argument... it is a quote that I agree with and which I think is clever and quite right... and expresses my thoughts more eloquently than I would say them.

(2) It says what I want to say... but since it would be plagiarism otherwise, I ethically cited it.

(3) He has been awarded prizes and appointed president of philosophical institutes... so he is a philosopher... not to mention all the other achievements that make him better than 98% of humanity and better than 100% of popes or bishops or priests or other charlatans people take as authority.

(4) So although I am not arguing anything and just quoting his clever incisive and correct observation on REALITY... he is still an authority on philosophical issues as ratified by Philosophical institutes.

(5) And this issue of humanity being duped into doing bad things in the name of gods (e.g. Luke 19:27 or Matthew 19:12 or Matthew 8:22 or Matthew 10:34-39 or Matthew 6:25-33 etc. etc. etc.) is definitely a philosophical matter.

Afterall, Linus Pauling was a multiple Nobel Laureate who believed that megadosing on vitamins would cure cancer. Does that mean it will? No.

Jesus thought spittle mixed with dirt would cure blindness and magical incantations would cure epilepsy and raise the already rotting dead... and he was only an authority on how to FISH FOR MEN... but yet half the world uses his claptrap as the divine authoritative WORD... ah well.

You do understand that we here agree with the idea that these religions are false, right?

Whatever y'all believe in is immaterial... I am arguing against your statements as written down in your posts... which are wrong as evinced by FACTS.

You're not arguing with church going Christian fundies on this forum.

I do not care who they are or where they go... I care about what their posts say and I am arguing against the content of those posts which are definitively wrong... as evinced by FACTS.

We're mostly atheists. We just think that your arguments, even if we agree with your conclusions, are flawed and your method of communication is terrible.

And y'all would be clearly and definitively wrong... as evinced by FACTS.

For example demeaning the method of the argument in reply to an argument is a fallacy of ad hominem.

 

[Leumas]

Ok, now I know who he is.

It took me all of 10 seconds to google and then cite it.

His opinion remains unsupported.

It is irrefragably supported by the FACTS of history and current affairs.

For example people who burned witches in the name of Jesus and his sky daddy... or people who voted for mobsters in the name of Jesus... or the people who helped shield the vile sordid deeds of their religious leaders.

Edited by jimbob: 

moderated thread

 

[Leumas]

The reason that I didn't refer to the second context is that you did not cite it.

Go read my post again... I did not cite your context either... I cited nothing... you are the one who chose to cite one place and not the other.

And yes, let's look at it Matthew 10:34-39 in context.

In the verses, I see quotation marks. Jesus is quoting someone/something.

Nope... the quotation marks are for Jesus' words...

Matthew and the KJV/NKJV do not refer to what Jesus is quoting.

That is because the quotes are for what Jesus' words are.

But I see that there is a footnote for verse 35 which you did not include.

The footnote gives an alternate translation/definition of "set".

j: Matthew 10:35 alienate a man from

So I don't see the word "hate" there.

Whether Jesus wants to "alienate" father from his son and daughter from her mother... or set them against each other.... the conclusion is that Jesus is a heinous cultist who alienates kin and kith from each other or sets them against each other... a vile thing to do.

You bring up Matthew 8:22. Why? The dead are dead. They have no problems. It's the living that have problems.

Seriously? You do not see any problem of a son abandoning his dead father's body and not bother to bury it so as to go follow a cult leader hoboing about?

Matthew 19:12 is the verse about making yourself a eunuch.

Yes... it is ... and Jesus said it is a thing to do for the sake of his kingdom of heaven... a pretty sordid thing to say.

Hey, I don't accept it. Not for me. I'm keeping my testicles. What's the problem?

Good... but are you a christian?

You claim the Bible says one thing, but quite often it doesn't.

And... as you have proven above... you are irrefragably wrong about that... as evinced by your attempt to argue that setting a father against his son is different from alienating a father against his son and not seeing anything wrong with that.

 

[junkshop]

...
(3) He has been awarded prizes and appointed president of philosophical institutes... so he is a philosopher...

He was awarded prizes, but not for philosophy - for physics.
From the Wikipedia page you linked to:

His research on elementary particles and physical cosmology was honored with numerous prizes and awards, including the 1979 Nobel Prize in physics and the 1991 National Medal of Science. In 2004, he received the Benjamin Franklin Medal of the American Philosophical Society, with a citation that said he was "considered by many to be the preeminent theoretical physicist alive in the world today."

The American Philosophical Society was founded in the 18th century, when:

...natural philosophy, or the study of nature, comprised the kinds of investigations now considered scientific and technological.

The one and only philosophical institute that he was appointed president of, the Philosophical Society of Texas, has this to say about him:

Physicist and astronomer Dr. Steven Weinberg of Austin, Texas passed away July 23, 2021. Weinberg won the Nobel Prize in 1979 in Physics and has been called the father of effective field theory. He was the author of several popular books on science including The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe, about the evolution of the universe in the first three minutes after the Big Bang. Weinberg moved to the University of Texas in 1980 from Harvard University. He was the Josey-Welch Foundation Chair in Science and Regental Professor at the University of Texas at Austin. He was a member of the Society since 1987. Articles about Dr. Weinberg appeared in the New York Times and the Austin American-Statesman.

He was not a philosopher, he was a scientist.






Oh, and by the way, the full name of the Benjamin Franklin Medal is 'The Benjamin Franklin Medal for Distinguished Achievement in the Sciences'.

 

[Leumas]

He was awarded prizes, but not for philosophy - for physics.
From the Wikipedia page you linked to:

The American Philosophical Society was founded in the 18th century, when:

The one and only philosophical institute that he was appointed president of, the Philosophical Society of Texas, has this to say about him:
He was not a philosopher, he was a scientist.

Oh, and by the way, the full name of the Benjamin Franklin Medal is 'The Benjamin Franklin Medal for Distinguished Achievement in the Sciences'.

One does not need to be an authority to comment on the FACTS OF REALITY... unlike Jesus who got those FACTS all wrong and lied about many of them.

And Steven Weinberg was a 1000,000 times more sane a philosopher than the popes or bishops... who believe that the creator of the universe is a slave mongering ethnic cleansing racist who loves Sumerian pimps above all of humanity and decided to inveigle a little married descendant of said Sumerian pimps to let him shove 1/3rd of himself inside her to sit there twiddling his thumbs for 9 months and then come out to yet again do nothing for 30 more years... not even lift a thumb to stave off the massacre of children he caused with his avarice for gold and incompetence in devising correctly functioning GPStars.

However... as I said... whether you think he is or not an authority is immaterial because I quoted him for the content of what he said which any rational person who knows history and reality knows is irrefragably incisive.