Thank you for making my point. I doubt you read the rest of what I wrote, but I go on to explain that the Marxist agenda is explicitly anti-human-rights, and that is a conscious philosophical decision by Xi Jinping and his idol, Chairman Mao--a man who intentionally murdered 70,000,000 Chinese citizens because they backed the wrong Marx…
Thank you for making my point. I doubt you read the rest of what I wrote, but I go on to explain that the Marxist agenda is explicitly anti-human-rights, and that is a conscious philosophical decision by Xi Jinping and his idol, Chairman Mao--a man who intentionally murdered 70,000,000 Chinese citizens because they backed the wrong Marxist dictator. This is an indisputable fact. Their only priority is to do what they believe is best for the Chinese Communist Party, even if that includes destroying entire populations who will not succumb to their agenda.
It's undeniable that acts of unspeakable cruelty have been carried out by people who didn't believe in God. But it's also undeniable that acts of at least equal cruelty have been carried to by people who did, no?
I think that's why Dave (and I) is struggling to understand why you say that a lack of faith in God is the key difference.
To take an especially pertinent example, the Catholic Church has, for decades, been embroiled in a pedophilia scandal that was known right up to the highest levels. They did everything they could to "selfishly cover up the incidents" and avoid consequences until it became impossible to continue hiding. Even now, there's been very little transparency about what is being done to rectify the problem.
I think the problem you're pointing to, which don't get me wrong is a very real problem, is more one of how power corrupts than of whether religion reliably makes societies or individuals more moral.
"To take an especially pertinent example, the Catholic Church has, for decades, been embroiled in a pedophilia scandal that was known right up to the highest levels."
Weak tea compared to the Crusades; lopping off children's heads with swords while singing hymns.
Or the Inquisition; unspeakably cruel tortures as punishment for doctrinal minutiae.
Yeah believing in an invisible spirit has been so good for the world.
The highest estimates for deaths during the Crusades is 9M, most believe 3M. That was over 700 years ago. the Marxists are racking up far larger tallies in the last 100 years. So far over 6M since 2019. And if you want to compare atrocities, the CCP removes the organa of political prisoners and sells the to people needing a transplant. Today, in this time.
At the time of the Crusades the global population was something like a fiftieth or a thirtieth what it is now, and the Crusaders rode on horseback for hundreds of miles. But, oh, "only 3-9 million," brutally slaughtered in the name of a preposterous belief. That would be equivalent to murdering 100-500 million today. Your dismissal of this is nothing short of monstrous.
I don't think that anyone commenting is defending the CCP. That misses the point.
Create a table of groups that have committed atrocities and/or other great evils, both conflating political ideology and religion as you have done and separating them in discrete groups. A jumbo statistical table of evil. Where would the Christian group be? How about other religions that have gods, but a different one from yours? Are they atheists if they have the wrong god?
Could you draw a line anywhere on the chart and say that one side of the line is evil and the other not? If you are a Christian, you could not because every line falls short of righteousness in the eyes of the Lord. Therefore, to what end does such a ranking serve?
That is the difficulty with your premise. You wrote that the problem is with the atheists, agnostics and I would venture to guess the religions with what you might call false gods. But your believers are on that table too, and I would venture to opine that they are not the bottom line, as if that mattered from a religious (Christian?) standpoint.
This commentary is about "People wanting someone to blame" which you are doing while being absolutely convinced that their view is the correct one. I understand that revealed religions demand certainty. That is the relevance of your stated opinion to the conversation, I guess. Can you see why that gives some people pause?
The Catholic church does not represent a majority of Christians, and few countries are politically tied to it. Religions of this world basically fall into three groups, Abrahamic, Polytheistic from India, and Confusionism/Budhism. Each hold a far higher standard of value on lives (at least those of their followers). None are perfect. But a complete lack of such a moral compass is a major detriment to any society and Marxist regimes have proven this over and over again.
“The Catholic church does not represent a majority of Christians”
I mean, that’s debatable, but hopefully we can agree that they should be a prime example of people who derive their moral compass from God. And while we have to speculate about the motivation for the actions of people like Stalin and Mao, the evil carried out in the name of religion was unequivocally motivated by a belief that it was Gods will.
I’m not saying this to attack religion. Evil is a human condition, not a specifically religious one. But your claim that religion is a protection against this condition doesn’t seem to bear much scrutiny.
This information took me less than ten seconds to find. I think it safe to assume that the rest of the data you post, with its abundance of right wing tropes, is similarly accurate, and you are similarly disinterested in actual facts.
Your repeated statement that atheists lack morals is as valuable as an overflowing septic tank. Show me a believer whose faith moves him to oppose an injustice and I will show you a thousand who believe with absolute conviction that the injustice is the will of their imaginary playmate.
50.1% is no more a majority than 49.9% because there is not Christian government that they all vote in. The majority of Catholics are in poor countries with little influence in Latin America.
Based on what? What do you know about Christianity that would lead you to the conclusion that non-Papists would follow Catholic ideology or allow the Pope to speak for them? Everything that has been trotted out as condemnation of Christians is not applicable to 49.9% of Christians and mostly based on events that are from hundreds of years ago.
Who do you think was calling out the pedo priests the loudest? Every non-Catholic Christian! There's a reason that Protestants encourage Reverends to be married and have families. And in the scheme of things, far fewer children are being abused by priests than are being scarred for life by Covid-19.
1) there are millions of celibate people who don't molest children. The factor that concentrates pedophilia in Catholic priests is likely something else.
2) the comparison with COVID makes no sense what so fucking ever.
> the comparison with COVID makes no sense what so fucking ever.
Yes, it does. Human Rights, whether we are talking about the right to life or the right to not be assaulted are both driven by morality that values human life. Yes, I know there are different thresholds of what constitutes a violation of Human Rights, and those scales can make one group more repugnant than another based on where your thresholds are. The point of my comment was that the CCP, and especially Xi Jinping clearly have a very, very low threshold for what is acceptable to do to another person in comparison to the majority of people today that follow one of the Abrahamic religions. Even among Muslims, the majority are peaceful and value the lives of non-Muslims, but the actions of radicals overshadow them. In the case of the CCP, the entire party is devoid of a moral code that values human life, so things like removing the liver of a Falon Gong follower while he's alive doesn't raise any eyebrow within the CCP.
I doubt this is real. I doubt it very much. Seventy million? Even with their currently obscene population that would hardly go unnoticed.
There is nothing in Marxism that is explicitly opposed to human rights, only against some of the more selfish American extensions of the idea of freedom. Your phrase "Marxist agenda" is a tell. I would bet money you have never read any actual sources, only half-educated detractors.
Wingnuts are constantly saying that Stalin murdered 100,000,000 Russians without even noting how absurd that is.
Thank you for making my point. I doubt you read the rest of what I wrote, but I go on to explain that the Marxist agenda is explicitly anti-human-rights, and that is a conscious philosophical decision by Xi Jinping and his idol, Chairman Mao--a man who intentionally murdered 70,000,000 Chinese citizens because they backed the wrong Marxist dictator. This is an indisputable fact. Their only priority is to do what they believe is best for the Chinese Communist Party, even if that includes destroying entire populations who will not succumb to their agenda.
It's undeniable that acts of unspeakable cruelty have been carried out by people who didn't believe in God. But it's also undeniable that acts of at least equal cruelty have been carried to by people who did, no?
I think that's why Dave (and I) is struggling to understand why you say that a lack of faith in God is the key difference.
To take an especially pertinent example, the Catholic Church has, for decades, been embroiled in a pedophilia scandal that was known right up to the highest levels. They did everything they could to "selfishly cover up the incidents" and avoid consequences until it became impossible to continue hiding. Even now, there's been very little transparency about what is being done to rectify the problem.
I think the problem you're pointing to, which don't get me wrong is a very real problem, is more one of how power corrupts than of whether religion reliably makes societies or individuals more moral.
"To take an especially pertinent example, the Catholic Church has, for decades, been embroiled in a pedophilia scandal that was known right up to the highest levels."
Weak tea compared to the Crusades; lopping off children's heads with swords while singing hymns.
Or the Inquisition; unspeakably cruel tortures as punishment for doctrinal minutiae.
Yeah believing in an invisible spirit has been so good for the world.
The highest estimates for deaths during the Crusades is 9M, most believe 3M. That was over 700 years ago. the Marxists are racking up far larger tallies in the last 100 years. So far over 6M since 2019. And if you want to compare atrocities, the CCP removes the organa of political prisoners and sells the to people needing a transplant. Today, in this time.
Marxist agenda, Marxist regimes, Marxist atrocities. And believing in God guarantees morality.
Keep up with current events? Six Catholics just guaranteed the deaths of many thousands of women and the birth of many deformed children.
No, I’m not interested in comparing atrocities. I believe that republicans will do the exact same thing given the chance.
I don’t know where you read this stuff but I think your notion that Marxism is the root of all evil is simpleminded.
At the time of the Crusades the global population was something like a fiftieth or a thirtieth what it is now, and the Crusaders rode on horseback for hundreds of miles. But, oh, "only 3-9 million," brutally slaughtered in the name of a preposterous belief. That would be equivalent to murdering 100-500 million today. Your dismissal of this is nothing short of monstrous.
I don't think that anyone commenting is defending the CCP. That misses the point.
Create a table of groups that have committed atrocities and/or other great evils, both conflating political ideology and religion as you have done and separating them in discrete groups. A jumbo statistical table of evil. Where would the Christian group be? How about other religions that have gods, but a different one from yours? Are they atheists if they have the wrong god?
Could you draw a line anywhere on the chart and say that one side of the line is evil and the other not? If you are a Christian, you could not because every line falls short of righteousness in the eyes of the Lord. Therefore, to what end does such a ranking serve?
That is the difficulty with your premise. You wrote that the problem is with the atheists, agnostics and I would venture to guess the religions with what you might call false gods. But your believers are on that table too, and I would venture to opine that they are not the bottom line, as if that mattered from a religious (Christian?) standpoint.
This commentary is about "People wanting someone to blame" which you are doing while being absolutely convinced that their view is the correct one. I understand that revealed religions demand certainty. That is the relevance of your stated opinion to the conversation, I guess. Can you see why that gives some people pause?
https://youtu.be/5y2FuDY6Q4M
The oldest Dylan is the best Dylan
The Catholic church does not represent a majority of Christians, and few countries are politically tied to it. Religions of this world basically fall into three groups, Abrahamic, Polytheistic from India, and Confusionism/Budhism. Each hold a far higher standard of value on lives (at least those of their followers). None are perfect. But a complete lack of such a moral compass is a major detriment to any society and Marxist regimes have proven this over and over again.
“The Catholic church does not represent a majority of Christians”
I mean, that’s debatable, but hopefully we can agree that they should be a prime example of people who derive their moral compass from God. And while we have to speculate about the motivation for the actions of people like Stalin and Mao, the evil carried out in the name of religion was unequivocally motivated by a belief that it was Gods will.
I’m not saying this to attack religion. Evil is a human condition, not a specifically religious one. But your claim that religion is a protection against this condition doesn’t seem to bear much scrutiny.
"The Catholic church does not represent a majority of Christians"
In a stunning and wholly unexpected turn of events, you are wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members
Catholics: 50.1%
Protestants: 36.7%
This information took me less than ten seconds to find. I think it safe to assume that the rest of the data you post, with its abundance of right wing tropes, is similarly accurate, and you are similarly disinterested in actual facts.
Your repeated statement that atheists lack morals is as valuable as an overflowing septic tank. Show me a believer whose faith moves him to oppose an injustice and I will show you a thousand who believe with absolute conviction that the injustice is the will of their imaginary playmate.
50.1% is no more a majority than 49.9% because there is not Christian government that they all vote in. The majority of Catholics are in poor countries with little influence in Latin America.
I have a cockatoo who makes more sense than you
Based on what? What do you know about Christianity that would lead you to the conclusion that non-Papists would follow Catholic ideology or allow the Pope to speak for them? Everything that has been trotted out as condemnation of Christians is not applicable to 49.9% of Christians and mostly based on events that are from hundreds of years ago.
Yes like the aggressive protection of pedophile priests. Centuries ago. Siding against gays and lesbians in social policy. Far in the past.
Do just go away.
As for what I know about Christianity… bring it. Let’s start with the Valentian Heresy, Iranaeus, Origen and Tertullian. Anytime, Anywhere.
Who do you think was calling out the pedo priests the loudest? Every non-Catholic Christian! There's a reason that Protestants encourage Reverends to be married and have families. And in the scheme of things, far fewer children are being abused by priests than are being scarred for life by Covid-19.
1) there are millions of celibate people who don't molest children. The factor that concentrates pedophilia in Catholic priests is likely something else.
2) the comparison with COVID makes no sense what so fucking ever.
> the comparison with COVID makes no sense what so fucking ever.
Yes, it does. Human Rights, whether we are talking about the right to life or the right to not be assaulted are both driven by morality that values human life. Yes, I know there are different thresholds of what constitutes a violation of Human Rights, and those scales can make one group more repugnant than another based on where your thresholds are. The point of my comment was that the CCP, and especially Xi Jinping clearly have a very, very low threshold for what is acceptable to do to another person in comparison to the majority of people today that follow one of the Abrahamic religions. Even among Muslims, the majority are peaceful and value the lives of non-Muslims, but the actions of radicals overshadow them. In the case of the CCP, the entire party is devoid of a moral code that values human life, so things like removing the liver of a Falon Gong follower while he's alive doesn't raise any eyebrow within the CCP.
Yeah Denmark is a slaughterhouse, right?
"Thank you for making my point. "
He didn't make your point, he clearly and effectively contradicted you. This unsubstantiated claim of triumph is one of the earmarks of a troll.
I doubt this is real. I doubt it very much. Seventy million? Even with their currently obscene population that would hardly go unnoticed.
There is nothing in Marxism that is explicitly opposed to human rights, only against some of the more selfish American extensions of the idea of freedom. Your phrase "Marxist agenda" is a tell. I would bet money you have never read any actual sources, only half-educated detractors.
Wingnuts are constantly saying that Stalin murdered 100,000,000 Russians without even noting how absurd that is.
What point of yours do you think I made?