Christians are becoming social pariahs in Britain, claims BBC presenter Jeremy Vine

Re Orangetom 1999

You wrote:

["There is no Biblical instruction to do what the Nazi party did in their brief history. This means that no matter what they or you claim about their religion ..it is not based on Christianity. For there is no Biblical Christian instruction to carry on so. There is also no Biblical instruction to carry on historically as did the Roman Catholic Church. "]


True enough. The christian atrocities were justified by another set of doctrines than the nazi atrocities. But only a christian counting angels on a pin could be interested in that kind of argument.

I'm quite sure, that those tortured and killed by christians and nazis weren't very interested in the ideological reasons behind it. They probably had other more pressing concerns such as feeling terrible.

Any and all fanatics, with the one and only truth, learn to be experts in wrapping their abominable messages in pink lies. And it's so sad, that education with logic and other satanic elements is becoming increasingly popular. It's easier to sell fantasies to un-educated imbeciles.

Re SliceNodice

You wrote:

["Enjoy life and don't let others hide the light and corrupt your knowledge, that there is a God, and Jesus and all of us are his sons and daughters. Remember Atheists, Jesus did not profess to be God. Jesus was simply enlightened enough to preach his blueprint."]

Are you just preaching, or do actually have some evidence for your extravagant claims.

reply to post by orangetom1999


Hi orangetom1999
I just want to be clear here

You said
There is no Biblical instruction to do what the Nazi party did

I pointed out where in the bible you can find such a thing

Your response was basically “yes but those dirty pagans had it coming“

I’m wondering, do you think if we could ask a Nazi party member about what they did to the Jews do you think we might get a similar sort of answer?

Re Undo

You wrote:

["would depend on your interpretation of "science". and nothing can ever be said to be proven, because ultimately, there's always the chance there's some bit of data or lots of bits of data, that prove the original assumptions/science totally incorrect or partially incorrect."]

Finally we're getting somewhere, though probably in the opposite direction of what you intended. ALL world-views mankind has can eventually be unravelled to some basic starting-points. And then starting-points can be questioned, and all this leading to everybody involved with this either become religious or similarly ir-rational, or to a construction of alternative models to un-ravelling strict deductive logic.

Quote: ["that we grasp onto each other's partially incorrect bits to prove the entire thing is incorrect, is one of humanity's foibles, from what i can tell."]

'Interpretation', so beloved by abramic religionists, is just one small part of greater reality-seeking methodologies. I promise to take the first extremist christian, addressing me from a broad epistemological basis, seriously.

Re Racasan

You wrote to orangetom:

["Your response was basically “yes but those dirty pagans had it coming“"]

Honestly, did you expect anything else from an extremist christian? They've had almost two thousand years to demonstrate who they are, and in spite of the present somewhat sugarcoating, violence for them is always an option, if anything else fails (and sometimes even before that).

I don't mind 'ordinary' christians, and I don't stand outside churches yelling obscenities. But these guys have IMO mindsets on par with all the insane dictators, who have ever pestered mankind.

reply to post by bogomil


i think you're attaching way too much anomosity to what i'm saying.
especially since you're operating from the perspective that you know exactly what i believe on the subject, which has always been the problem when it comes to ancient history (we assume we know what the other person believes without having actually asked them what they believe, based on our own limited knowledge of what the other person believes).. for example, the bible is a compilation of ancient texts, some of which touch on the subject of the first systems of laws. they weren't religious in the same way we think of religion today. no faith was required for the ancient priests, who were directly involved and interacting with the gods in question, be they pharaohs, demi-god kings, extra-terrestrials or other dimensional beings. it wasn't till the gods began to vacate the premises and left only their progeny behind to rule the roost, that the concept of faith became a necessary part of the world view of the ancient people.

What a mish-mash of ideology this thread has become.

What is Christianity anyhow? Most of what I see foisted as such on TV is not true Christianity. Many who call themselves Christian are woefully ignorant of anything Jesus might have said while here on Earth. They scamper about seeking wealth and fame as do the non-believers.

I do believe there is a remnant who still practice true Christianity. The "popular church" will accept the end-time deception without a clue. They shall believe a lie and be damned. As far as the true church being "socially acceptable", I doubt that they expect to be "socially acceptable", or care that they are not.

Re KaiserSoze

You wrote:

["I may not be able to prove to you in a way that would satisfy you that what I believe is correct although I do feel I have valid reasons to believe. On the other hand, opinions aside, you can't prove I'm wrong. Obviously one of us is wrong, however the consequences of me being wrong pale in comparison to the consequences of you being wrong."]

What a load of semantic ****. I'm aware that not everybody are familiar with existential speculations on academic level, neither would I expect such a level to be THE final authority.

But going to the other extreme on the subject of: 'How do we validate claims of evidence' by insisting that the flying spaghetti monster is REAL until disproved.... I had hoped we had that kind of argumentation behind us. But apparantly not.

But please, do go on, it's wonderful PR for non-believing.

LIKE LIKE LIKE!!!

Christians are the most fake, hypocritical people with the worst superiority complexes I've ever seen. An yes, I've spent months around many different groups of religious people. Christians are without a doubt the WORST.

Re Undo

You wrote:

["especially since you're operating from the perspective that you know exactly what i believe on the subject,"]

You have brought up a perfectly valid question, and if I have transgressed my actual knowledge of you and your opinions, I stand corrected. But as far as I remember, I have related to the content of your posts, even to the point of 'sub-topics' still having bearing on the main topic.

Quote: ["for example, the bible is a compilation of ancient texts, some of which touch on the subject of the first systems of laws."]

Agreed. But what is 'ancient' in this context? Is genesis 1 & 2 an original 'ancient' text or a reconstruction of one. (This is related to my coming questions, as I believe mono-theism was a strong factor in the introduction of 'faith')

Quote: ["they weren't religious in the same way we think of religion today. no faith was required for the ancient priests, who were directly involved and interacting with the gods in question,"]

Wasn't there myself, and myths can only be considered as literary evidence for what some folks may have had opinions about. But you're probably right about, that 'faith' (in the modern, especially pauline sense) wasn't such an important aspect of early worldviews. A lot of pragmatism is necessary for survival in non-technological societies, so 'faith' would be an anti-survival burden, reserved for the parasitical top and for the common man more like a plantation fear of Massa, who has all the power (this is ofcourse from a social perspective).

But, a friendly question, how does this lead back to OP?

reply to post by bogomil


i'm just responding to your commentary.

have you ever read the book of enoch? (it's an ancient hebrew pseudopigraphical text)
check out this passage:


"And I saw a deep abyss, with columns of heavenly fire, and among them I saw columns of fire fall, which were beyond measure alike towards the height and towards the depth (my edit: descending and ascending columns of energy in an active galaxy). And beyond that abyss I saw a place which had no firmament of the heaven above, and no firmly founded earth beneath it: there was no water upon it, and no birds, but it was a waste and horrible place (my edit: the black hole). I saw there seven stars like great burning mountains, and to me, when I inquired regarding them, The angel said: 'This place is the end of heaven and earth: this has become a prison for the stars and the host of heaven."

[...]

"And I proceeded to where things were chaotic. And I saw there something horrible: I saw neither a heaven above nor a firmly founded earth, but a place chaotic and horrible. And there I saw seven stars of the heaven bound together in it, like great mountains and burning with fire. Then I said: 'For what sin are they bound, and on what account have they been cast in hither?' Then said Uriel, one of the holy angels, who was with me, and was chief over them, and said: 'Enoch, why dost thou ask, and why art thou eager for the truth? These are of the number of the stars of heaven, which have transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and are bound here till ten thousand years, the time entailed by their sins, are consummated.' And from thence I went to another place, which was still more horrible than the former, and I saw a horrible thing: a great fire there which burnt and blazed, and the place was cleft as far as the abyss, being full of great descending columns of fire: neither its extent or magnitude could I see, nor could I conjecture. "

now watch this really interesting, although rather long video:

Google Video Link

what are the chances that a man, over 3000 years ago, saw a super massive black hole? pretty good i'd say, since the universe is old enough for extra terrestrials or other dimensionals or both, to have interacted with our fledgling societies. this is the kind of thing that leads me to believe, there's alot we don't know about ancient history because it's been withheld from us, and that withholding, has developed entire theories about the less than credible information in ancient texts. i don't think it's not credible, i just think the way we read it, how it is translated, and how we are taught it, changes its validity.

reply to post by theicc

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I have been living in a Buddhist meditation center for over thirty years. I was born Catholic and lapsed initially when I was a young child and then permanently when I went away to university at 17.

In my own life I have found the human imperfections to be fairly evenly distributed.

It was a strange and not unpleasant experience to find among Buddhist clerics similar types of personalities and behaviors my family had chuckled at when I was a boy in Catholicism; the long winded sermon, the careful attention to ministry among the wealthy, and so on. Only very occasionally, in both religions, is one brought up sharply before the precipitous chasm of self abnegation represented by the personality of a real saint.

Human beings are prone to seek luxury, to feather their own nests, to aggrandize themselves socially, to presuppose inferiority in others, etc. Even overtly egalitarian social systems like communism/socialism evolve their hierarchies and hypocrisies. Are Christians really the worst at that sort of thing? Maybe they are just the most irritating.

Re Undo

You wrote:

["have you ever read the book of enoch?"]

Yes, a number of years ago.

Unfortunately my PC technology-level doesn't allow me to look at web-videos, but I'm very familiar with efforts of creating a synthesis of contemporary science and the saner forms of religious/semi-religious cosmogony and cosmology. I'm also familiar with the scenario of ancient astronauts, cosmic/hyper-dimensional wars and arguments about the existence of non-human species.

Being a theorist about conspiracy-theory per se, I would join your present direction with enthusiasm, only not on a thread about modern-day christians' social status in UK.

But should you come across a suitable thread, joining it yourself; send me a U2U.

In a friendly mode: This will be my last response on this thread to this far-off topic subject.

Re Ipsedixit

You wrote:

["Human beings are prone to seek luxury, to feather their own nests, to aggrandize themselves socially, to presuppose inferiority in others, etc."]

Manifested as with all other herd-animals. A few alpha types at the top fight for total dominance, and the herd is generally content with finding good grazing with minor conflict.

This can be mankind's salvation (not meant in a religious sense) or its downfall.

Human dictators use territorial instincts, our constant relatively mild greed and social engineering systems of distribution (of power, money, food, sexual access etc) to further their own aims by creating polarized situations, with outer enemies being a threat to the whole system of the herd.

On the other hand are the herd-members not that keen on joining violent ventures, especially not if they have a nice little grazing spot reserved for themselves.

Our (and probably that of most biological life on this planet) fate depends on the balance between these two drives.

Quote: ["Even overtly egalitarian social systems like communism/socialism evolve their hierarchies and hypocrisies. Are Christians really the worst at that sort of thing? Maybe they are just the most irritating."]

Maybe 'even' isn't a proper word in this context of 'overtly egalitarian', because 'egalitarian' principles alone haven't a chance of being socially functional. Humans are basically born un-equal with some degree (see above) of social Darwinism. Transforming this un-equality into the political form of egalitarianism is practically impossible, if the aim is enforced uniformism; resorting to smallest common denominator of social and human qualities. Such a process requires 'education of the masses' (i.e. indoctrination) and the new alpha bosses will soon emerge as those who dictate the content of this 'education'.

'Secular' and 'liberal' are needed also, so as to prevent any elitist claims at top- or underdog level. Inside such a system's periphery there's some individual freedom to be un-equal. The periphery protects the principle of 'egalitarianism'. "So far goes your rights, but not further".

Quite ingenious actually, considering our other options.

I would say, that the herd is generally quite content with this system, apart from an unavoidable amount of quarrelsomeness.

And that dictators in spe hate it can't come as a surprise. Now they have to be just ordinary, non-elitist citizens without any privileges. In the context of ATS threads with mainly christian extremists as representatives of fanatical fascist ideology, 'liberals' are often propagandistically associated with some satanistic agenda by the extra holies.

If christians are 'worse' or not depends on the actual power-constellations. In our present global situation I would personally consider the christian right as the most dangerous minority-part of mankind. With jihadism as a close runner-up.

reply to post by bogomil

And please take away practically painless dentistry, it's godless and as bad as decadent soft toilet-paper

Christ dude all your guns were blazing away today I was wiping my brow while reading concerned if I was in your cross hairs.

I have to applaud you dude, fine very fine

Surely wish I got an education, but then I guess you already knew that

reply to post by bogomil

Interesting.

I wonder why human beings are the way they are?

I don't think about Christianity much any more, but when I consider it as a product of Christ's recommendations, I go to the Sermon on the Mount for a clear and concise statement of them.

reply to post by bogomil


what nationality are you? you seem to have targetted abrahamic beliefs but completely missed the fact both christianity and islam are from the roots of judaism. by chance are you a jewish atheist?

It is possible that a lot of the problems associated with Christianity really derive from the actual name it chooses to give itself, Christianity. This confuses people and leads them to have higher expectations of the religion than it can reasonably be expected to fulfill. The name seems to imply that the religion is some kind of embodiment of the ideals, aims and habits of Christ, when obviously it falls far short of that, as any institution would. After all, Christ was interrelating with people, not with corporations, except under compulsion.

People probably wouldn't be so annoyed with Christianity if it changed it's name to the Jesus Christ Fanclub, for example. Outwardly, at least, it would seem to fall more within that category, rather than the category of an ideal made corporate, as it is assumed to be by the secular public.

Maybe it is the public's fault. Often they don't realize that religious organizations of various sorts are really organizations of asperation rather than completion. Priests are not saints, generally. They are fans of Jesus and imitate him to the best of their ability, as on the "Britain's Got Talent" show. Some are better at it than others.

Re Djinn

Quote: ["Christ dude all your guns were blazing away today I was wiping my brow while reading concerned if I was in your cross hairs."]

Never worry about that. You have almost debate-guru status for me, and I have only once slightly disagreed with you. Oooops, breaking the ATS social code of 'distance', didn't I just?

Quote: [Surely wish I got an education, but then I guess you already knew that]

Educations you can get.

But your ability to be direct and to the point was in your soul already from the start (guess I have quarreled too much with fundies recently, since I'm starting to use semantic doublebinds. You know like: "Are you drunk today also?")

Re Ipsedixit

Quote: [I wonder why human beings are the way they are?"]

Me too, and for 45 years. So I do have a kind of tentative answer, filling ten pages of extremely boring ruminations.

Just like the japanese zen-expert Dr Suzuki, who wrote 23 volumes on the simplicity of zen.

PS I'll master the quote technique sooner or later.