Setting the Record Straight on Christianity

[The Land of Truth]

You didn't do much for it to not be deserved. You came off a bit self-righteous to me.

I am not sure how, though I respect your decency and welcome the criticism in the betterment of myself.

Me too!

The hug is appreciated.

[Choronzon]

As if the biggest critiques of Christianity are that some of its adherents are violent...

[Czechanada]

Yeah, 15. I thought I knew everything when I was 15, too.

As far as us insulting you goes, you've come off as arrogant and intolerant of the opinions of others, so what did you expect?

I don't know everything, nor would I ever claim to, but I do know much more than the pions of the internet (speaking in general). As for arrogant, I know, I try to be. And intolerant, how so? I have insulted no one and taken the brunt of it myself.

You've ignored the claim of a logical fallacy, which is a valid criticism, and yet you claim to know more.

[Ceannairceach]

Yeah, the No True Scotsman is about as shitty a defense as a real Scotsman, who all only know how to attack.

[Desperate Measures]

Yeah, 15. I thought I knew everything when I was 15, too.

As far as us insulting you goes, you've come off as arrogant and intolerant of the opinions of others, so what did you expect?

I don't know everything, nor would I ever claim to, but I do know much more than the pions of the internet (speaking in general). As for arrogant, I know, I try to be. And intolerant, how so? I have insulted no one and taken the brunt of it myself.

I am NOT a subatomic particle.

[Farnhamia]

Yeah, 15. I thought I knew everything when I was 15, too.

As far as us insulting you goes, you've come off as arrogant and intolerant of the opinions of others, so what did you expect?

I don't know everything, nor would I ever claim to, but I do know much more than the pions of the internet (speaking in general). As for arrogant, I know, I try to be. And intolerant, how so? I have insulted no one and taken the brunt of it myself.

Have you admitted that anyone else's opinion on Christianity has any worth at all?

[Ceannairceach]

Yeah, 15. I thought I knew everything when I was 15, too.

As far as us insulting you goes, you've come off as arrogant and intolerant of the opinions of others, so what did you expect?

I don't know everything, nor would I ever claim to, but I do know much more than the pions of the internet (speaking in general). As for arrogant, I know, I try to be. And intolerant, how so? I have insulted no one and taken the brunt of it myself.

Peons. Its peons. Not pions, peons.

[The Land of Truth]

You've ignored the claim of a logical fallacy, which is a valid criticism, and yet you claim to know more.

I have done no such thing, I do not claim to know everything nor want to. Claim to know more than what? Fools insulting others anonymously, knowing no punishment will befall them? I pity the man who knows less.

[Tubbsalot]

I don't know everything, nor would I ever claim to, but I do know much more than the pions of the internet (speaking in general).

Fraid not.

Also interesting that you've decided 'peon' isn't an insult (assuming you were trying to say peon).

[Mavorpen]

I have done no such thing,

Where is your refutation of the criticism of your No True Scotsman fallacy?

[Farnhamia]

I don't know everything, nor would I ever claim to, but I do know much more than the pions of the internet (speaking in general). As for arrogant, I know, I try to be. And intolerant, how so? I have insulted no one and taken the brunt of it myself.

Peons. Its peons. Not pions, peons.

Maybe he's studying subatomic physics.

[Tubbsalot]

Claim to know more than what? Fools insulting others anonymously, knowing no punishment will befall them? I pity the man who knows less.

Good job holding that moral high ground and refraining from insults.

Perhaps you'd get a better reception if you bothered listening to what others had to say. Or defending your arguments. This is a debate forum, not an I'm-right-you're-wrong forum.

[The Land of Truth]

Have you admitted that anyone else's opinion on Christianity has any worth at all?

I don't see how this is relevant, everyone's opinion has worth, my ignoring it in replies does not constitute ignorance, but lack of acknowledgment.

As for mispellings, PlayStation 3s aren't exactly language tutors.

[Ceannairceach]

Have you admitted that anyone else's opinion on Christianity has any worth at all?

I don't see how this is relevant, everyone's opinion has worth, my ignoring it in replies does not constitute ignorance, but lack of acknowledgment.

As for mispellings, PlayStation 3s aren't exactly language tutors.

Hm, so the man who hath past judgement upon his peers cannot spell without spellcheck?

I find that incredibly hilarious.

[Unchecked Expansion]

Have you admitted that anyone else's opinion on Christianity has any worth at all?

I don't see how this is relevant, everyone's opinion has worth, my ignoring it in replies does not constitute ignorance, but lack of acknowledgment.

As for mispellings, PlayStation 3s aren't exactly language tutors.

If you won't even acknowledge others, why should anyone listen to you?

[The Land of Truth]

Good job holding that moral high ground and refraining from insults.

Perhaps you'd get a better reception if you bothered listening to what others had to say. Or defending your arguments. This is a debate forum, not an I'm-right-you're-wrong forum.

No one has contributed anything worthy of arguments. As for backing up claims, I'd like to see you follow your own advice.

[Mavorpen]

Good job holding that moral high ground and refraining from insults.

Perhaps you'd get a better reception if you bothered listening to what others had to say. Or defending your arguments. This is a debate forum, not an I'm-right-you're-wrong forum.

No one has contributed anything worthy of arguments. As for backing up claims, I'd like to see you follow your own advice.

This thread isn't to argue the morals of Christianity nor the existence of God, its purpose is to explain why the men held responsible for Christianity's wrongdoing aren't actually Christian, therefore Christianity has done no wrong.

Yeah they totally are Christian though because the only requirement to be a "Christian" is that you follow Christ. What you're proposing is that everyone you don't like can't possibly be a Christian because they don't fit your personal idea of what a Christian should be. It's pretty much a textbook example of what's known as the No True Scotsman fallacy:

"No true Scotsman is an informal logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.
...
Alice: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Bob: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
Alice: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis."

[Genivaria]

I've seen a lot of threads about Christianity on here (for and against), and I notice the same argument by atheists, "Christianity is bad because Christians throughout history killed people for it."

Well, let me explain why this makes no sense:
1) The most important Christian (Jesus) never hurt a fly. He never advocated violence nor committed, He was so strongly against killing that He was willing to be captured by the authorities than throw a punch.
2) These "evil Christians" broke Christ's cardinal rule, never kill, period. Not to mention several other rules along the way.
3) The "authorities" of Christianity (the Pope, etc.) weren't acting in the interests of Christ. The only real authority in Christianity is Jesus, and He didn't tell those men to kill anyone.

The men who committed those crimes were not Christians, it takes more than calling yourself Christian to be Christian, they were hypocrites, who used God for personal gain. I look forward to hearing from the wise folks at NS.

Yes they were. It is not your place to tell someone their beliefs.
And as for this.

"Christianity is bad because Christians throughout history killed people for it."

Thats not what we do, we don't say that every murderer or rapist in history who just so happened to be a Christian did those thing specifically because he was a Christian, there has to be a visible link between the two.
The Crusades, Inquisition, Holocaust, 9/11 and the Salem Witch Trials were all influenced by religion.
Why? Because there are specific parts of the doctrine that justify these acts.

You cannot say that someone "killed in the name of Atheism" because that doesn't make sense.
We have no dogma or doctrine of Atheism that tells us to do ANYTHING much less bad things, so how could we kill in its name?

[The Land of Truth]

If you won't even acknowledge others, why should anyone listen to you?

I'm not acknowledging them for the simple fact that reply seems unnecessary, I don't have to acknowledge them for them to have said something. My input is not needed after every post.

[Ceannairceach]

If you won't even acknowledge others, why should anyone listen to you?

I'm not acknowledging them for the simple fact that reply seems unnecessary, I don't have to acknowledge them for them to have said something. My input is not needed after every post.

It sort of is when you formed the game, and are now refusing to play ball.

[The Land of Truth]

The Crusades, Inquisition, Holocaust, 9/11 and the Salem Witch Trials were all influenced by religion.
Why? Because there are specific parts of the doctrine that justify these acts.

Christian doctrines justified no such acts.

[Tubbsalot]

Perhaps you'd get a better reception if you bothered listening to what others had to say. Or defending your arguments. This is a debate forum, not an I'm-right-you're-wrong forum.

No one has contributed anything worthy of arguments.

Sorry, maybe you missed-

Did Jesus not kick the bankers out of the bank?

I've seen a lot of threads about Christianity on here (for and against), and I notice the same argument by atheists, "Christianity is bad because Christians throughout history killed people for it."

Well, let me explain why this makes no sense:
1) The most important Christian (Jesus) never hurt a fly. He never advocated violence nor committed, He was so strongly against killing that He was willing to be captured by the authorities than throw a punch.
2) These "evil Christians" broke Christ's cardinal rule, never kill, period. Not to mention several other rules along the way.
3) The "authorities" of Christianity (the Pope, etc.) weren't acting in the interests of Christ. The only real authority in Christianity is Jesus, and He didn't tell those men to kill anyone.

The men who committed those crimes were not Christians, it takes more than calling yourself Christian to be Christian, they were hypocrites, who used God for personal gain. I look forward to hearing from the wise folks at NS.

1: Mark 11:12-14

12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry:

13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.

14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.

Sounds rather petty.

2: Could you cite where he said that?
3: Dead people don't normally tell anyone to kill anyone.

Er yeah I don't think most people object to the nice parts of Christianity, like "do unto others as etc" or "give to the poor," I think the problem is more about all the genocide and evilness that God perpetrated according to the Bible.

Or alternatively, if we talk about Christians, all the intolerance and control freakery than a certain subset exhibits (that behaviour, again, can be justified by reference to the Bible).

It's not all about Christ, despite the name. Nor is Christ necessarily the perfect figure of peace, happiness and enlightenment that he's portrayed to be.

Well, let me explain why this makes no sense:
1) The most important Christian (Jesus) never hurt a fly. He never advocated violence nor committed, He was so strongly against killing that He was willing to be captured by the authorities than throw a punch.

Weak.

2) These "evil Christians" broke Christ's cardinal rule, never kill, period. Not to mention several other rules along the way.

I have more respect for them, generally, than I do for Christ.

Well, exceptions are made for those that cross certain lines I feel are unacceptable, but warring in the name of a God isn't something I would consider 'evil'. A little silly, maybe, since I don't view God as existing.

This thread isn't to argue the morals of Christianity nor the existence of God, its purpose is to explain why the men held responsible for Christianity's wrongdoing aren't actually Christian, therefore Christianity has done no wrong.

Are Christians perfect?

This thread isn't to argue the morals of Christianity nor the existence of God, its purpose is to explain why the men held responsible for Christianity's wrongdoing aren't actually Christian, therefore Christianity has done no wrong.

Yeah they totally are Christian though because the only requirement to be a "Christian" is that you follow Christ. What you're proposing is that everyone you don't like can't possibly be a Christian because they don't fit your personal idea of what a Christian should be. It's pretty much a textbook example of what's known as the No True Scotsman fallacy:

"No true Scotsman is an informal logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.
...
Alice: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Bob: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
Alice: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis."

I've seen a lot of threads about Christianity on here (for and against), and I notice the same argument by atheists, "Christianity is bad because Christians throughout history killed people for it."

Well, let me explain why this makes no sense:
1) The most important Christian (Jesus) never hurt a fly. He never advocated violence nor committed, He was so strongly against killing that He was willing to be captured by the authorities than throw a punch.

Jesus drove merchants out of the Temple. With a whip.

I
2) These "evil Christians" broke Christ's cardinal rule, never kill, period. Not to mention several other rules along the way.

That is a really stupid fucking rule.

I've seen a lot of threads about Christianity on here (for and against), and I notice the same argument by atheists, "Christianity is bad because Christians throughout history killed people for it."

Well, let me explain why this makes no sense:
1) The most important Christian (Jesus) never hurt a fly. He never advocated violence nor committed, He was so strongly against killing that He was willing to be captured by the authorities than throw a punch.
2) These "evil Christians" broke Christ's cardinal rule, never kill, period. Not to mention several other rules along the way.
3) The "authorities" of Christianity (the Pope, etc.) weren't acting in the interests of Christ. The only real authority in Christianity is Jesus, and He didn't tell those men to kill anyone.

The men who committed those crimes were not Christians, it takes more than calling yourself Christian to be Christian, they were hypocrites, who used God for personal gain. I look forward to hearing from the wise folks at NS.

Uh, if Jesus said don't kill people, why did he also say he didn't come to revoke the old laws and the old laws say to kill people?

1) The most important Christian (Jesus) never hurt a fly. He never advocated violence nor committed, He was so strongly against killing that He was willing to be captured by the authorities than throw a punch.

Pretty sure He was actually Jewish? And while He did not like Peter slicing off the dude's ear, I wouldn't Jesus, or God in general, a pacifist.

2) These "evil Christians" broke Christ's cardinal rule, never kill, period. Not to mention several other rules along the way.

Wasn't one of the proverbs like "There is a time for war, and a time for peace" or killing or something? I just know that there is a time to kill, but that murder isn't cool. Taking it out of context is what gets the Crusades. People off their rocker is how you get that Norwegian Shooting thing.

3) The "authorities" of Christianity (the Pope, etc.) weren't acting in the interests of Christ. The only real authority in Christianity is Jesus, and He didn't tell those men to kill anyone.

It's been handed from Peter, who was put in charge of the Church, arguably, in Christ's interest. Although I will concede that there was probably never supposed to be an army to go with the Pope seat.

The men who committed those crimes were not Christians, it takes more than calling yourself Christian to be Christian, they were hypocrites, who used God for personal gain. I look forward to hearing from the wise folks at NS.

Saying that someone who commits sin isn't a Christian isn't really Biblical, now, is it?

I've seen a lot of threads about Christianity on here (for and against), and I notice the same argument by atheists, "Christianity is bad because Christians throughout history killed people for it."

Well, let me explain why this makes no sense:
1) The most important Christian (Jesus) never hurt a fly. He never advocated violence nor committed, He was so strongly against killing that He was willing to be captured by the authorities than throw a punch.

Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his 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 Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it. (Matthew 10:34–39 NASB)

Oh yes, so strongly against killing indeed. The sword is for...ummm...well, swords don't kill people. People kill people.

This thread isn't to argue the morals of Christianity nor the existence of God, its purpose is to explain why the men held responsible for Christianity's wrongdoing aren't actually Christian, therefore Christianity has done no wrong.

So this thread is just one huge "No True Scotsman."

-those?

That is to say, half of the first page?

As for backing up claims, I'd like to see you follow your own advice.

You haven't challenged any of my posts. I have nothing to defend.

Aside from those posts, obviously, which I seem to have backed up sufficiently, judging by the lack of response.

[Genivaria]

The Crusades, Inquisition, Holocaust, 9/11 and the Salem Witch Trials were all influenced by religion.
Why? Because there are specific parts of the doctrine that justify these acts.

Christian doctrines justified no such acts.

Ah I see, you haven't read the bible. Read it and come back.

[Norstal]

You insulted your fellow Christians by judging them as non-Christians.

Am I insulting you by saying this?

So, you mean to tell me the murderers and pillagers of history are Christian in your eyes? My...I have no words for this However, I am not insulted as you had the grace to direct these words to me.

If they say they are Christians, you cannot judge them and say they are non-Christians for you are not Yahweh. Because every Christians does un-Christian things. That is not an excuse to call them non-Christian.

[The Land of Truth]

I'm not acknowledging them for the simple fact that reply seems unnecessary, I don't have to acknowledge them for them to have said something. My input is not needed after every post.

It sort of is when you formed the game, and are now refusing to play ball.

I refuse to play hard ball because it is not necessary, this is not a thread to determine whether I'm right or wrong nor to find the moralities of anything. I simply wanted opinions, and I found non that swayed my convictions. Arguing on the internet is pointless as it leads nowhere, besides, you cannot sway someones religious beliefs, that is in their hands. All you can do is foster some understanding from the hatred.