Atheists destroy churches, attack the faithful

[halleyscomet]

Why has your pope concluded an agreement with the chinese regime?

On plane, pope discusses sex abuse, corruption of cover-up, China pact

One of the letters, he said, came from China and was signed jointly by a bishop from the government-controlled Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association and a bishop from "the, let's say, traditional Catholic Church."

Reporters also asked the pope about the Vatican-China agreement for the nomination of bishops, which was announced Sept. 22 while the pope was in Lithuania, and about the suffering of Chinese Catholics who had risked their lives to remain faithful to the pope and not accept the communist government's control over the church.

Some Catholics in China "will suffer" and feel betrayed, he said, "but they have great faith" and in the end will trust the pope.

Pope Francis praised the team of Vatican negotiators who worked "two steps forward, one step back" for 10 years, but he insisted he bore all responsibility for the agreement and, especially, for regularizing the situation of seven bishops who had been ordained without Vatican approval.

With every "peace treaty" and every negotiation, he said, "both sides lose something" and for the Vatican that was complete control over the nomination of bishops.

However, he said, people should remember that for centuries the kings of Spain and Portugal nominated the bishops of Latin America, and the Austro-Hungarian emperors did the same in their territory.

The new Vatican-Sino agreement, Pope Francis said, sets up "a dialogue on eventual candidates" for dioceses in China, "but the naming is the pope's -- let that be clear."

 

[Rincewind]

I tried to re-read the article, but the link in the first post is unfortunately no longer active.

However, this is what TBD quoted:

BEIJING — China’s government is ratcheting up a crackdown on Christian congregations in Beijing and several provinces, destroying crosses, burning bibles, shutting churches and ordering followers to sign papers renouncing their faith, according to pastors and a group that monitors religion in China.

The campaign corresponds with a drive to “Sinicize” religion by demanding loyalty to the officially atheist Communist Party and eliminating any challenge to its power over people’s lives.


Please note: no churches destroyed, and no Christians attacked. Maybe those terms were in the now missing article, but one might assume that the OP would have quoted the strongest case for his assumptions, don't you think?

 

[The Big Dog]

I tried to re-read the article, but the link in the first post is unfortunately no longer active.

However, this is what TBD quoted:

BEIJING — China’s government is ratcheting up a crackdown on Christian congregations in Beijing and several provinces, destroying crosses, burning bibles, shutting churches and ordering followers to sign papers renouncing their faith, according to pastors and a group that monitors religion in China.

The campaign corresponds with a drive to “Sinicize” religion by demanding loyalty to the officially atheist Communist Party and eliminating any challenge to its power over people’s lives.


Please note: no churches destroyed, and no Christians attacked. Maybe those terms were in the now missing article, but one might assume that the OP would have quoted the strongest case for his assumptions, don't you think?

solid analysis rincewind! You literally cannot find the article or actually read the tiny excerpt I quoted? Say, Rincewood? Did you find the part where the ******* Chinese put a million muslims in Camps??

But rincewind is assuming that the strongest case would be in an article he is too lazy to find, and certainly too lazy to find the part where the strongest case is the fact the scumbags put a million people in reeducation camps.

Don't you think?

lololol

 

[Norman Alexander]

Hi! It is fantastic when we see the spectacularly faulty reasoning laid out in such detail!

Let me clarify what I have so dutifully explained:

atheist tyrants = anti-religious.

type something about brown suits to your heart's content, it literally can't get worse for your "argument."

A much better correlation is "brown suits = anti religious". MUCH better correlation. Almost 100% correlation.

Really, you are killing your own argument here when you think you are having a laff.

 

[arthwollipot]

The Big Dog isn't arguing. He's proselytising. He doesn't care about counter-arguments. All he is interested in is pushing his anti-atheist agenda.

Why he chooses this particular forum to do that is a mystery. Seems like masochism.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yeah, it is. But the idea that you think that this is characteristic of atheism rather than an activity of the totalitarian government of China is even more appalling.

The Big Dog isn't arguing. He's proselytising. He doesn't care about counter-arguments. All he is interested in is pushing his anti-atheist agenda.

Why he chooses this particular forum to do that is a mystery. Seems like masochism.

Say, would you stand by the “argument” that what I “think” was “even more appalling” that the actual human rights violations in China?

I quoted your post so that all people posting on this particular forum could recall what you posted.

Walk us through how much more appalling my post was than putting a million Muslims in re-education camps.

People reading this particular forum are no doubt asking how “more appalling” my post was.

 

[The Big Dog]

Thread about actual human rights abuses in China, and posters whine about, wait what was it?

Oh yeah, anti-atheist agenda!

Poor atheists.

 

[arthwollipot]

Say, would you stand by the “argument” that what I “think” was “even more appalling” that the actual human rights violations in China?

I quoted your post so that all people posting on this particular forum could recall what you posted.

Walk us through how much more appalling my post was than putting a million Muslims in re-education camps.

People reading this particular forum are no doubt asking how “more appalling” my post was.

See? He hasn't even noticed the fact that I've posted three or four times now - that what I found appalling was not the fact that he was posting ******** on the internet, but that by posting ******** on the internet he was redirecting and distracting from the real cause of the atrocities, which is totalitarian cultural imperialism, and thus permitting such atrocities to continue. I mean, it's almost as though I hadn't already explained that four or five times. Counterarguments have absolutely no effect on The Big Dog - his ideology makes him immune to reason. But there's no way he can even acknowledge his complicity in the very persecution that he claims to be so concerned about. His hatred and disgust of atheists is more powerful by far than any other concern.

Yes, what we can see here is extremely clear. That's one small thing that he may be right about.

 

[sackett]

They eat dogs, too

Sometimes, the god-botherers get on a man's nerves, until he wants to give 'em a good boot in the as I was sayin', them Chinee commies know what to do 'n dam well DO it.

Wish the a-theists would grow a pair 'n do summa the same.

Anybody don't like that? Then come over here 'n smell my shoes. They're 16.5mm high. Should be easy.

 

[The Big Dog]

See? He hasn't even noticed the fact that I've posted three or four times now - that what I found appalling was not the fact that he was posting ******** on the internet, but that by posting ******** on the internet he was redirecting and distracting from the real cause of the atrocities, which is totalitarian cultural imperialism, and thus permitting such atrocities to continue. I mean, it's almost as though I hadn't already explained that four or five times. Counterarguments have absolutely no effect on The Big Dog - his ideology makes him immune to reason. But there's no way he can even acknowledge his complicity in the very persecution that he claims to be so concerned about. His hatred and disgust of atheists is more powerful by far than any other concern.

Yes, what we can see here is extremely clear. That's one small thing that he may be right about.

Looks through that misty mountain meltdown...

Oh dear, poor atheists, so victimized by quoting their own words

Quoting atheist words is part of the anti atheist agenda.

Shhh, do not mention actual human rights abuses by atheists in China. Pointing out actual human rights abuses is part of the anti atheist agenda.

 

[arthwollipot]

Of course, the mainstream media reporting on this issue mentions "atheism" and "atheist"... wait, can you guess? Can you guess how many times The Guardian mentions "atheism" or "atheist" in today's article? I bet you can't guess.

That's right, zero. The Guardian uses the words "atheism" and "atheist" exactly zero times in this article about the totalitarian Chinese government's crackdown on dissident churches. Five points to everybody except The Big Dog, who was the only one in the class to get the number wrong.

 

[The Big Dog]

Sometimes, the god-botherers get on a man's nerves, until he wants to give 'em a good boot in the as I was sayin', them Chinee commies know what to do 'n dam well DO it.

Wish the a-theists would grow a pair 'n do summa the same.

Anybody don't like that? Then come over here 'n smell my shoes. They're 16.5mm high. Should be easy.

Lol! Oh man. Big fan of human rights abuses here huh?

Them Chinese commies know how to commit human rights abuses!

And if any skeptics here are actually against human right abuse?

Y’all just come see our friend here.

Oh man, hee hee!

 

[arthwollipot]

Shhh, do not mention actual human rights abuses by atheists in China. Pointing out actual human rights abuses is part of the anti atheist agenda.

Deliberately misattributing human rights abuses to atheists instead of the real perpetrators (the totalitarian Chinese government) is part of the anti atheist agenda.

 

[The Big Dog]

Of course, the mainstream media reporting on this issue mentions "atheism" and "atheist"... wait, can you guess? Can you guess how many times The Guardian mentions "atheism" or "atheist" in today's article? I bet you can't guess.

That's right, zero. The Guardian uses the words "atheism" and "atheist" exactly zero times in this article about the totalitarian Chinese government's crackdown on dissident churches. Five points to everybody except The Big Dog, who was the only one in the class to get the number wrong.

“For decades after the Communist revolution in 1949, believers in any religion were harshly persecuted as Mao Zedong pursued his socialist dream. In 1982, China adopted a new constitution that technically guaranteed freedom of religion, but it has not stopped authorities from shutting churches, demanding patriotic loyalty from pastors and imams and even dictating how the faithful can pray.”

Dream post

 

[arthwollipot]

“For decades after the Communist revolution in 1949, believers in any religion were harshly persecuted as Mao Zedong pursued his socialist dream. In 1982, China adopted a new constitution that technically guaranteed freedom of religion, but it has not stopped authorities from shutting churches, demanding patriotic loyalty from pastors and imams and even dictating how the faithful can pray.”

Dream post

"For decades after the Communist revolution in 1949, believers in any religion were harshly persecuted as Mao Zedong pursued his socialist dream. In 1982, China adopted a new constitution that technically guaranteed freedom of religion, but it has not stopped authorities from shutting churches, demanding patriotic loyalty from pastors and imams and even dictating how the faithful can pray.

Even while religions were technically allowed to exist – there are 60 million Christians in China – the constitution says “religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination”, a key hurdle for the Catholic church. China limits the number of officially sanctioned religions to five: Buddhism, Taoism, Protestantism, Catholicism and Islam."

Nothing about atheism. Nothing about destroying religion. You're dreaming. And quoting selectively.

 

[The Big Dog]

Deliberately misattributing human rights abuses to atheists instead of the real perpetrators (the totalitarian Chinese government) is part of the anti atheist agenda.

Anti atheist agenda is much much worse than putting a million Muslims in camps.

We heard already.

Tolatrain atheist Chinese government cracking down on religion.

Firm Marxist Atheists. ******* monsters

 

[The Big Dog]

"For decades after the Communist revolution in 1949, believers in any religion were harshly persecuted as Mao Zedong pursued his socialist dream. In 1982, China adopted a new constitution that technically guaranteed freedom of religion, but it has not stopped authorities from shutting churches, demanding patriotic loyalty from pastors and imams and even dictating how the faithful can pray.

Even while religions were technically allowed to exist – there are 60 million Christians in China – the constitution says “religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination”, a key hurdle for the Catholic church. China limits the number of officially sanctioned religions to five: Buddhism, Taoism, Protestantism, Catholicism and Islam."

Nothing about atheism. Nothing about destroying religion. You're dreaming. And quoting selectively.

Religion harshly persecuted. Nuthin to do with the official atheist party tho?

Oh man, ******* ridiculous. Go put some Muslims in a ******* camp, burn a Bible and tell us how it had nuffin to do with atheist monsters

 

[arthwollipot]

Anti atheist agenda is much much worse than putting a million Muslims in camps.

We heard already.

Tolatrain atheist Chinese government cracking down on religion.

Firm Marxist Atheists. ******* monsters

Look, The Big Dog. I'm going to level with you. I've never been antitheist. Just ask Thor2 and Argumemnon - I usually bend over backwards to make accommodations for religion and to point out where atheists are using bad arguments. I'm not an antitheist. But you are turning me into one. I have harboured more resentment towards religion since making the mistake of responding to you in this thread than I have in all the years I've been posting on this forum. You are doing that. By providing such a bad example, you are driving me away from my accommodationist stance towards religion. Is that really what you intend? To make me hate religion more than I do now? Because it's working. I am really very angry at you and at the religion you purport to hold. That's not a feeling that I like.

You're not anti-atheist. You are antitheist. You are driving opinions of your religion into the ground. Granted, not a lot of people here are friendly towards religion in the first place, but I usually am and you are pushing me away from that towards antitheism.

I'm going to have to go home now and remember that I have friends in modern, progressive churches who are just as strongly against totalitarian cultural imperialism and human rights abuses as I am, and not as dishonest and hateful as you are. They provide a good example of what religion can be. What religion should be. I choose to associate with them, and not with you.

 

[dann]

what about boots?
It seems to me that we might find a correlation with boots.

No, I don't think so. That only seems to fit the European kind. Pol Pot, for instance, was more of a sandal kind of guy (1:20):

 

[dann]

Tolatrain atheist Chinese government cracking down on religion.

Firm Marxist Atheists. ******* monsters

Instead of blabbering on about the "Marxist Atheists", TBD should have told us of from the very beginning that the Chinese persecutors of religion are Tolatrain. That would have changed everything.