The Religious Genocidal Instinct

34 comments:

Theological Discourse said...

Jehovah witness's Loftus? seriously? mainstream Christianity doesn't even consider jehovah witness's as Christians. What exactly are you trying to do here, somehow compare and contrast jehovahs witness view of the end times with the main sects of Christianity?

Didn't you used to be a pastor?

first off this video can easily be dismissed as an appeal to outrage or an appeal to emotion, someone feels sad or outraged at X happening and therefore its terrible! does not prove anything. People have had plenty of time to repent and accept God so they wouldn't have to go through these horrible things that occur at the end. Then the author of the video is trying to equate someones giddy anticipation of the end times as if all Christians feel that way, I am sure if all Christians were so giddy they wouldn't be out evangelizing trying to save people from the exact things that Jehovah witness seems to be so 'giddy' about.
There is no hatred, there is no hate speech. Telling someone about revelations is just as hateful as telling someone if they continue to sit in a burning building it will collapse and they will die, or trying to save said person from the burning building, ya that's real hateful.

I am curious Loftus, as to how you can sit here and honestly try to use a former Jehovah witness to debunk Christianity. You used to be a pastor, so you should know that Christianity does not consider Jehovah witness's to be christians, would you accept a youtube video of a former creationist trying to debunk evolution using creationism to do it? I doubt it, so why on earth would you expect a former jehovah witness trying to debunk Christianity using arguments from 'the watchtower'?
your double standards are appalling.

John W. Loftus said...

Theological Discourse, I am no longer in the habit of specifying who is or who is not a Christian. That's what YOU do. Tell you what, start a blog arguing that yours is the true Christianity and hammer it out among yourselves and come back here to declare the winning consensus. I'll debunk the result. ;-)

Can't do that? I thought so.

In any case, the video indicts your end time views as well, so if the shoe fits, wear it.

Theological Discourse said...

It doesn't matter what you're into doing, your personal feelings on it are not the point. Would you accept the argument if I said creationism is the same science as evolution? probably not, yet you expect a Christian to accept an argument about all of Christianity based upon a former Jehovah witness?

I noticed you dodged these very specific points.

This video is an appeal to outrage.

If Christians were so giddy then why are they trying to save people from these events?

Telling someone about revelations is just as hateful as telling someone if they continue to sit in a burning building it will collapse and they will die, or trying to save said person from the burning building, ya that's real hateful.

would you accept a youtube video of a former creationist trying to debunk evolution using creationism to do it?

How you feel about who is a Christian and who is not a Christian is irrelevant, since reality states that Jehovah witness aren't Christians, just as reality states that creationism is not science. So you need to deal with how your personal feelings on the issue are irrelevant.

John W. Loftus said...

TD said...This video is an appeal to outrage.

;-) Yes I am outraged! Aren't you? And shouldn't the facts be laid on the table about what you really expect to happen? You need to think about it. This is what you think will happen someday, correct? Then it must be spelled out. I can imagin you wanting to talk about things while hiding the true nature of the facts, but they must be spelled out and you must face them head on.

And while you warn others of this world-wide genocide, what is your God doing to help you? Why isn't he as concerned as you are about this. If you were given more evidence you could help others see the truth, and you look for better arguments all of the time. You yearn to be able to say the things that will warn others in ways they will accept, don't you? Then why doesn't your God do likewise?

ifeelfine72 said...

Theological Discourse: What denomination are you?

Anthony said...

TD,

It doesn't matter if the person was a former JW or not. Bottom line, unless you hold to a hyper-preterist position then you will hold to one of the following:

1) Futurism/dispensational premillennialism
2) Historical premillennialism
3) Amillennialism
4) Postmillennialism

Whether you are Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Catholic, Episcopal, Mormon, or JW, you will hold to one of these positions and they all lead to the same conclusion: God committing genocide against humanity for not believing in the "true" religion. I know many Christians who put little in this life and focus so much on their "eternal reward."

As the speaker in the video said, this is such a waste of a life.

Jeffrey Mark said...

Hi John, how are you doing? You bring up a good point in your comments, something I've realized about myself, too.

When I was a Christian, I used to point out that Jehovah's Witnesses aren't "real" Christians. And I agree with what you say -- now that I no longer buy into Christianity at all, I find it silly to even bother with such arguments. There are many different breeds of Christianity, but they're all still Christians. They're different sides to the same thing. They all use the same Bible (albeit rewritten in many different ways).

And I've also noticed they also use their "they're not Christians" argument a great deal, especially when they want to quickly write off something they're embarrassed about (like the Crusades, for example) or if they disagree with something another Christian said. "Well, he's a Democrat but he's not a *real* Christian." Blah, blah blah... :-)

Scott said...

Hello Theological,

What exactly are you trying to do here, somehow compare and contrast jehovahs witness view of the end times with the main sects of Christianity?

Would you consider former senator Tom DeLay, former senator Rick Santorum and Joesph Libeberman part of the main sects of Christianity? Tom lives for the second coming of Christ and hopes it happens tomorrow. Not at some point in the future when more people have been 'rescued.'

Rapture Ready: The Christians United for Israel Tour

first off this video can easily be dismissed as an appeal to outrage or an appeal to emotion, someone feels sad or outraged at X happening and therefore its terrible! does not prove anything.

But for you to escape, you must do so at the expense of others. As an omnipotent being, God could simply cause the earth, and everyone remaining on it, to instantly physically disintegrate. But instead, those who remain will suffer greatly.

Telling someone about revelations is just as hateful as telling someone if they continue to sit in a burning building it will collapse and they will die, or trying to save said person from the burning building, ya that's real hateful.

But this building will not collapse until the second coming. It will just keep burning.

Do you not look forward to being able to escape this burring building before the end of your natural life? Would you petition God to allow you to stay inside this burring building for the duration of your natural life to prevent others from being inside it when it collapses?

Or do you hope it occurs in your lifetime?

Theological Discourse said...

Perhaps you are confused as to what an appeal to outrage is.

http://keithdevens.com/wiki/Logical+fallacies

Argument from outrage: argues against something without offering arguments besides saying that the thing would be unacceptible, or outrageous, or "wrong", or "silly", and so on.


That video is an appeal or an argument from outrage.

Loftus I have thought about everything, down to the last detail, but you are using a red herring and trying to divert the conversation and change the topics. Please stay on topic, we are having a discussion and I asked you some questions, please address the questions.

1. If Christians were so giddy then why are they trying to save people from these events?

Address that question please, are Christians giddy or not?

2. There is no hatred, there is no hate speech. Telling someone about revelations is just as hateful as telling someone if they continue to sit in a burning building it will collapse and they will die, or trying to save said person from the burning building, ya that's real hateful.

In light of this analogy are Christians still hateful?




And while you warn others of this world-wide genocide, what is your God doing to help you? Why isn't he as concerned as you are about this.


Loftus what is your point here? perhaps you could frame it into an argument or something.


If you were given more evidence you could help others see the truth, and you look for better arguments all of the time. You yearn to be able to say the things that will warn others in ways they will accept, don't you? Then why doesn't your God do likewise?

The problem isn't the lack of evidence, if someone isn't willing to accept the evidence because of pride, hard heart, mad at God, disbelief, i.e. emotional irrational reasons, that is hardly our fault.

John W. Loftus said...

TD, the video is a discussion starter. I didn't make it. The video highlights some facts, and if the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't don't wear it. Presenting facts is not necessarily making an argument, so it cannot be an argument from outrage if there isn't an argument. It asks you to think about some things. Have you really done this?

TD Asked: 1. If Christians were so giddy then why are they trying to save people from these events?

I didn't say they were. Can you quote me on that? But some Christians are, just think Fred Phelps. And many are anxiously looking for Jesus' return with exceeding joy without thinking of the many people who will be slaughtered.

Td asked: In light of this analogy are Christians still hateful?

Again, where did I say they were? Please quote me on this. I think you fail to realize that the only words I completely agree with are my own words. Although, once again, some Christians are indeed hateful. Think again Fred Phelps. As I said, if the shoe fits where it, if not then don't.

What's the problem here?

Besides, if I may, YOU seem angry.

TD asks: Loftus what is your point here? Perhaps you could frame it into an argument or something.

Okay.

If according to you God did the greater deed (by sending his son to die for our sins), then he should do the do the lesser deeds (by helping more people come to know him).

According to you God did the greater deed.

Then he should do the lesser deeds.

But we don't see him do the lesser deeds.

So therefore you God never did the greater deed.

Satisfied now? Are you telling us you couldn't see what the argument was such that I had to frame it for you?

TD said...The problem isn't the lack of evidence, if someone isn't willing to accept the evidence because of pride, hard heart, mad at God, disbelief, i.e. emotional irrational reasons, that is hardly our fault.

What if a historian said that when other historians didn't agree with him? What if a Muslim said that to you? This is the last bastion excuse for people who do not have the needed evidence to convince others. I can reverse this whole approach on you like this:

If you (i.e., TD) aren't willing to accept the evidence because of pride, hard heart, mad at life in general, the need to believe, i.e. emotional irrational reasons, that is hardly my fault.

Where does that get us?

Nowhere as in NO Where.

Cheers.

Anthony said...

Hey Theological,

Perhaps you are confused as to what an appeal to outrage is.

Your statement is an obvious attempt to set John up for your "knock down." Unfortunately for you the video clip was meant to make a full statement or full defense, how can you in a 10 minute video.

1. If Christians were so giddy then why are they trying to save people from these events?

It's not so much that Christians are "giddy" about it. There are many reasons why Christians evangelize, for some it's a burden because of guilt as they see themselves responsible for not getting them saved through their message. For others it's an attempt to hasten the coming of Christ.

Address that question please, are Christians giddy or not?

Giddiness isn't really the issue. It's the simple fact that for many Christians believe that they are God's chosen and will inherent a paradise while the rest suffer under God's genocide.

By the way, when you speak of "revelations" are you speaking of God's revelations in general or the book of revelation? If it's the later then you have the annoying habit of using the plural when it's the "book of revelation." Sorry, pet peeve.

The problem isn't the lack of evidence, if someone isn't willing to accept the evidence because of pride, hard heart, mad at God, disbelief, i.e. emotional irrational reasons, that is hardly our fault.

This is the problem, the number one problem: evidence, or the lack thereof. If you think we reject Christianity for irrational or emotional reasons, or pride, or hard heart is simply ridiculous and shows that you are not familiar with where many of us stand.

Cloudberry said...

Fascinating. I enjoyed the video clip, and the comments, too. Who was the speaker? She made some good points. John, could you list her name? Forgive me if it is there and I missed it...but I think she deserves some credit.

To those who watched the clip and experienced unpleasant emotions, it might be worthwhile to ask why.

Why does this bother me? Am I afraid it might be true? What if it is?

The fact is that an overwhelming majority of people have been exposed to the concept of God, and to the concept of Christianity. It would be nearly impossible to grow up in the United States without exposure to Christian beliefs, and that is true for many people in other countries as well. Where it is not true, most people are exposed to other religious beliefs from birth. Few reach adulthood without exposure to any form of religion.

This is important because, while the nonbeliever has almost certainly studied, considered, and experienced belief, the believer has almost certainly NOT studied, considered, or experienced nonbelief in a supernatural deity.

It is not threatening to a nonbeliever to hear talk of a deity that the nonbeliever already knows about and truly believes to be mythological or in less kind terms, shameless bunk.

However, it seems to be extremely upsetting or threatening or frightening for a believer to confront the mere possibility that what they believe in may not be real.

In that case, it's a good idea to ask yourself, Why do I feel this way? Why do I feel so angry, threatened, defensive, or frightened?

And then go easy on yourself.

Confronting reality is a difficult thing and none of us are immune to the distress that it causes. Yet, it's the only way to grow, the only way to feel free again, and the only way to banish the scary negative feelings brought up by another person's differing point of view.

Btw, I enjoyed your talk for CFI in Cleveland this fall.

Theological Discourse said...


TD, the video is a discussion starter. I didn't make it. The video highlights some facts, and if the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't don't wear it. Presenting facts is not necessarily making an argument, so it cannot be an argument from outrage if there isn't an argument. It asks you to think about some things. Have you really done this?


I never said you made that video, but are you not trying to debunk Christianity with that video? since it states in the header the purposes of this blog are to debunk Christianity?


It asks you to think about some things. Have you really done this?

I used to be an atheist, believe me I have thought about these things to the smallest detail.


I didn't say they were. Can you quote me on that? But some Christians are, just think Fred Phelps. And many are anxiously looking for Jesus' return with exceeding joy without thinking of the many people who will be slaughtered.

I never said you said any of that, I am asking you so we can see exactly what shoes fit and what shoes don't. So we can agree that 'some' Christians are not thinking of the many people who will be slaughtered, does this ignorance constitute hate?



Again, where did I say they were? Please quote me on this. I think you fail to realize that the only words I completely agree with are my own words. Although, once again, some Christians are indeed hateful. Think again Fred Phelps. As I said, if the shoe fits where it, if not then don't.

I never said you said this, the same thing applies to above, I am asking to see what shoe fits. It seems that you and I agree that some Christians are hateful.

There are some Christians that are hateful, some that are not hateful, is it a logical course of action to say that because some Christians are hateful, then most Christians, or all Christians or Christianity itself is hateful?

What's the problem here?

The problem here is you are using this video to debunk Christianity, but the video contains appeals I am going through this video trying to see what 'facts' you are using to debunk Christianity.

Besides, if I may, YOU seem angry.

Try and not mistake confidence for anger thanks!


Okay.

If according to you God did the greater deed (by sending his son to die for our sins), then he should do the do the lesser deeds (by helping more people come to know him).

According to you God did the greater deed.

Then he should do the lesser deeds.

But we don't see him do the lesser deeds.

So therefore you God never did the greater deed.

Loftus you are being illogical. Because someone does the big deeds does that mean they are obligated to do the small deeds? If we take your logic and apply it elsewhere lets see if you agree. If criminal murdered someone (the greater deed) then he should also cheat on his taxes (the lesser deed), the criminal did not cheat on his taxes, therefore he did not murder someone.


Satisfied now? Are you telling us you couldn't see what the argument was such that I had to frame it for you?

Please don't fault me for asking you to clarify yourself.


What if a historian said that when other historians didn't agree with him? What if a Muslim said that to you? This is the last bastion excuse for people who do not have the needed evidence to convince others. I can reverse this whole approach on you like this:

If you (i.e., TD) aren't willing to accept the evidence because of pride, hard heart, mad at life in general, the need to believe, i.e. emotional irrational reasons, that is hardly my fault.

Surely the amount of evidence given to someone does not indicate beleif. Evolution has tons of evidence backing it right? yet there are biologists that do not accept it.

John W. Loftus said...

TD, what is about the "if the shoe fits wear it" phrase that you don't understand?

And your answer to my argument is non-analogous. God's goal is to save people right? Why would he send his son and not help you convince people of that with more evidence and better arguments when you yourself would clearly want to do this?

I suspect I have someone with blind faith by the hook. ;-)

Theological Discourse said...

Loftus, you seem to be dodging my questions as well as my applications to your logic in other places. I asked you very specific questions so we can see, in a sense, what shoe fits.

I now ask you again Loftus.

You and I agree that some Christians are hateful, so is it a logical course of action to say that because some Christians are hateful, then most Christians, or all Christians or Christianity itself is hateful?



I have taken your Logic which equates to "Someone that does big deeds must do small deeds, otherwise they did not do big deeds" and applied it elsewhere to see if you agree.

I'll make it simple for you Loftus.

Henry Ford created Ford Motor Company (greater deed) we did not see Henry Ford build automobiles in the factory (lesser deed) therefore according to your logic Henry Ford did not create Ford Motor Company.

Do you see how ridiculous your logic is when it is applied to something else?


God's goal is to save people right? Why would he send his son and not help you convince people of that with more evidence and better arguments when you yourself would clearly want to do this?

Gods goal is to save people, but as I stated before, a point which you have conveniently ignored 'evidence does not matter if the person does not accept it due to emotional irrational reasons'

Evolution has tons of evidence and arguments to support it right? yet there are biologists that do not accept evolution. This tells us that evidence no matter how much is given is not a guarantee when it comes to convincing people.

I have bolded it for you so you don't miss it this time.

John W. Loftus said...

TD, If you'd like to engage me in the future do so with what I actually write, okay? Of course I don't think that because some Christians are hateful that all Christians are, sheesh.

TD: I have taken your Logic which equates to "Someone that does big deeds must do small deeds, otherwise they did not do big deeds"

I'll make it simple for you TD.

Your analogies fail and here's why in more detail. God wanted to save us so he sent his son to do so. If he did that deed then why wouldn't he also do the lesser deeds of helping others come to a saving knowledge of Jesus? This is an epistemological problem. Of course it doesn't follow that he must do so, but then what are the reasons for not doing so? I don't see any reasons why he wouldn't, I mean after all, why would he send his son and do little (or nothing) afterwards to help us see this and believe it? That seems like a wasted sacrifice to me. Since I'm looking at these claims and wondering about them, then I can quite reasonably conclude God never did the greater deed either. He may have done so. This argument of mine doesn't prove that he didn't. It's just that it looks terribly stupid for an omniscient being not to have done so if he wanted to save us. He does want to save us, doesn't he? Does he want to save us more than YOU want to save me? And don't you want to be able to warn me with convincing arguments and evidence? It sure seems to me that you have more of a desire than God to save me and warn me. But then you never died on the cross for my sins, either, so you have less at stake in helping me. You never did the greater deed. So why is it that Christians like you seem more interested in warning us about our sins and the afterlife than God does? Wouldn't YOU love to have this kind of evidence on YOUR side? Then why didn't your God provide it? That's the dilemna I'm proposing.

TD: 'evidence does not matter if the person does not accept it due to emotional irrational reasons'

Yes, likewise. You do not want to accept the evidence due to emotional irrational reasons. Spot on that! But where does accusing each other of this get us anywhere? As I said, it gets us nowhere, as in NO WHERE!

TD: This tells us that evidence no matter how much is given is not a guarantee when it comes to convincing people.

Well, the kind of evidence you described SHOULD convince others but it doesn't, does it? This should make us all cautious right, you too! But overwhelming evidence, the kind your God could've given us but didn't, is another thing entirely.

There is a big difference between stating your case and denying a case. Debying a case is easy, we all do it. But when we state our respective cases that's a different matter entirely. Why? Because it's easier to smell a rotten egg than it is to lay a good one, that's why. What I'm doing here is denying Christian theism. YOU are affirming it. You are not making a good case. Now if the shoe were on the other foot and I was stating a case for naturalism then I would have the difficult task and you would have the easy task. That's why some people are agnostics; because they don't think anyone has made their respective cases, and that's why I describe myself as an agnostic atheist.

Havok said...

TD: This tells us that evidence no matter how much is given is not a guarantee when it comes to convincing people.

If it existed, wouldn't a being as powerful and knowledgeable as the Christian god know exactly the sort of evidence required, and be able to produce it?

Theological Discourse said...


TD, If you'd like to engage me in the future do so with what I actually write, okay? Of course I don't think that because some Christians are hateful that all Christians are, sheesh.

thats great Loftus! I ask that since your blog is called debunking Christianity, so one can come to the conclusion that everything on this blog is more or less for the purposes of debunking Christianity.


Your analogies fail and here's why in more detail. God wanted to save us so he sent his son to do so. If he did that deed then why wouldn't he also do the lesser deeds of helping others come to a saving knowledge of Jesus? This is an epistemological problem. Of course it doesn't follow that he must do so, but then what are the reasons for not doing so?


Great! you have acknowledged that God does not need to do the little things. This is great since it is a huge step from your earlier statement which was
"God never did the greater deed."


I don't see any reasons why he wouldn't, I mean after all, why would he send his son and do little (or nothing) afterwards to help us see this and believe it? That seems like a wasted sacrifice to me.

Loftus! I doubt anyone would consider 2 billion people a wasted sacrifice, and that is modern religious statistics, that is not including how many people were saved ever since Christ was crucified. I am not sure what it is you are looking at, it doesn't seem you are looking at facts. After all, is a cure for AIDS a 'wasted cure' if 7 billion people don't want to take it? but 2 billion people do? your definition of 'wasted' seems only to apply to your personal preference, but does your personal definition of wasted hold water?


Since I'm looking at these claims and wondering about them, then I can quite reasonably conclude God never did the greater deed either.
He may have done so. This argument of mine doesn't prove that he didn't. It's just that it looks terribly stupid for an omniscient being not to have done so if he wanted to save us. He does want to save us, doesn't he? Does he want to save us more than YOU want to save me? And don't you want to be able to warn me with convincing arguments and evidence?

Now you take one step foward and 2 steps back, you admit that if God does the bigger things then he does not have to do the smaller things, then turn around and say you can reasonably conclude God did not do the greater thing, then turn around and state 'he may have done so.' Loftus make up your mind! you keep mentioning evidence and arguments but this goes back to the whole 'evidence and arguments do not guarantee belief' the point which you continually ignore.


It sure seems to me that you have more of a desire than God to save me and warn me. But then you never died on the cross for my sins, either, so you have less at stake in helping me. You never did the greater deed. So why is it that Christians like you seem more interested in warning us about our sins and the afterlife than God does? Wouldn't YOU love to have this kind of evidence on YOUR side? Then why didn't your God provide it? That's the dilemna I'm proposing.

Once again there is no dilemma since evidence is not a guarantee to convince people, a point which you continually ignore Loftus.


Yes, likewise. You do not want to accept the evidence due to emotional irrational reasons. Spot on that! But where does accusing each other of this get us anywhere? As I said, it gets us nowhere, as in NO WHERE!

Loftus, you are engaging in a Tu quoque logical fallacy. Just because 'I do it to'(which is completely irrelevant) does not affect the validity or legitimacy of my statement. It is a form of an ad hominem logical fallacy. You are trying to dismiss my valid point because 'I do it too.' Consider the following analogy. We are both smokers, and I tell you 'you need to stop smoking because it will kill you. You reply 'you're a hypocrite! accusing doesn't get us anywhere!' me being a hypocrite or accusing you does not affect the validity of the statement.

So the point stands Loftus, stop trying to avoid it and address the point. Where this gets us is for you to understand that evidence and convincing arguments do not guarantee belief.


Well, the kind of evidence you described SHOULD convince others but it doesn't, does it? This should make us all cautious right, you too! But overwhelming evidence, the kind your God could've given us but didn't, is another thing entirely.

Loftus! stop trying to change the subject. My point was that evidence does not convince people, not whether or not it SHOULD convince them. You are trying to change the subject! address the issue Loftus.

Evolution has tons of evidence and arguments to support it right? yet there are biologists that do not accept evolution. This tells us that evidence no matter how much is given is not a guarantee when it comes to convincing people.

as you can see Loftus, my point was that evidence no matter how much does not convince people, not whether it SHOULD convince them. You are trying to change the topic to whether or not it SHOULD convince them. This was the not point I was making, but it is a point you are trying to change it too. please address my points Loftus, thank you.


There is a big difference between stating your case and denying a case. Debying a case is easy, we all do it. But when we state our respective cases that's a different matter entirely. Why? Because it's easier to smell a rotten egg than it is to lay a good one, that's why. What I'm doing here is denying Christian theism. YOU are affirming it. You are not making a good case. Now if the shoe were on the other foot and I was stating a case for naturalism then I would have the difficult task and you would have the easy task. That's why some people are agnostics; because they don't think anyone has made their respective cases, and that's why I describe myself as an agnostic atheist.

Loftus! now you are trying so hard to change the subject, but I just won't have it. Whether or not I am affirming Christianity is irrelevant, as we are having a discussion and you are making statements as I am making statements and am addressing them. further more you are lying! as you have described yourself as an atheist in your author bio over at the secular web

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/john_loftus/bio.html

Happily married to the love of my life, who's also an atheist, and with whom I own a small business.

Now you describe yourself as an agnostic atheist? which is it?

In any case Loftus, please address the issues

John W. Loftus said...

TD, you are here to win an argument and that's all. If you were seriously interested in discussing these issue I would. You're not. So I won't.

I'll let others judge for themselves. I've got better things to do than to waste my time with you.

Gandolf said...

I agree John Loftus it is not a good enough answer for Christians to try to slither for the age old us and them argument."We are Christians ,they are not.We have followed the lord properly,those others have been led by Satan" etc etc.Blah blah blah.

Its a blatant feeble excuse in my opinion.It allows for much sadness to continue to continue down the same track as it has done now for HUNDREDS OF YEARS.It sidetracks the real issues that need to be addressed A.S.A.P .

It defies decent logic by offerings of pitiful excuses.By trying to overlook real obvious facts that can been seen that suggest many fractions within Christianity are led up the gum tree by reading this complicated book the bible said to be divine word of God.

Its not just the JW`s that have this problem,no far far from it.The many many many fractions that all exist within the framework of Christianity are all a visual witness to this complete mess.

How ever would it ever really be that logical to think a book suggested to be divine and of God,would ever likely leave so many fractions in its wake?.

God likes to write complicated manuals for his children?.God is a very complicated fellow?.God sets traps?.

Pffffft !!

Christians Get real !its only word of mere man .Thats why.Its so obvious!.

Its Sitting there smacking you all quietly in the face ,yet you just turn the other cheek put your proud noses in the air and offer these pitiful "oh but they are not Christians ,but we are" sob stories .

John could post a number of other different fractions that all show obvious bullshit like that within this JW`s .

What would still be the cry, "yes but they are not Christians ,we are ".Thats what it would still be.

No doubt the JW`s say the same as does any other fraction."They are wrong we are right",and they all really believe it.

But what do you all have in common no matter what your churches personal amount of extreme might be or not be ?.

You all overlook just how these things can really ever come to happen and how SO MANY MANY ,can ever come up with such differing translations all from ONE BOOK when its supposedly divine and word of God.

Suggesting Satan to be as some answer,is putting all those who wrote these scriptures on some pedestal like some humanly God .

Thats good ?.

And also in effect you are judgmental of those that you suggest have been led astray by this supposed Satan.

That good ?.

Theological Discourse said...


TD, you are here to win an argument and that's all. If you were seriously interested in discussing these issue I would. You're not. So I won't.

I'll let others judge for themselves. I've got better things to do than to waste my time with you.


Loftus, I see you have ended the conversation without addressing my points. Quite sad. You completely ignored my points and then decided to end the conversation based upon an erroneous irrelevant assumption that i am here to win an argument. How disappointing.

Havok said...

TD: Loftus! I doubt anyone would consider 2 billion people a wasted sacrifice, and that is modern religious statistics, that is not including how many people were saved ever since Christ was crucified.

So you'll accept those wacky JW's and others whose doctrines differ from yours for the purpose of making a point, but deny that they are Christians when it is uncomfortable. How many of those 2 billion are "Real Christians"tm ?

Theological Discourse said...

Havok, the Jehovah witness are not included in the 2 billion figure. Perhaps you might be able criticize Loftus with the same scrutiny you are criticizing me with and maybe explain to him how he continually dodged my questions and points, then tried to change the subject, and finally when his tactics ran out he just left based upon an irrelevant and erroneous assumption, is a rather intellectual immature thing to do. After all, criticizing me with more scrutiny than applied to Loftus is a double standard.

Havok said...

TD, I don't know what doctrinal beliefs you hold, nor what you think constitutes a "Real Christian"tm, so I don't know how quite what to make of your 2 billion figure.

Isn't a Christian simply someone who believes in Christ (often prepending 'Jesus' to that title), which would certainly include the JW's.

Is your theological view liberal, accepting all those who believe in Jesus (except of course JW's for some reason) as Christians, or does your faith cause you to exclude large numbers of self identifying Christians because they're not following the correct sect?

sconnor said...

TD,

I doubt anyone would consider 2 billion people a wasted sacrifice.

Hmmmmmm, does that mean the six million Jews who suffered and died in the Holocaust (their virtual hell on earth) went to hell?

It's a wasted sacrifice because the other 70% of the world who are another religion or the non-religious wouldn't get the supposed perks of said sacrifice.

Additionally, when you start slicing and dicing who is a real christian or not that 70% grows exponentially.

And when you consider all the people, throughout the centuries, who were not privy to your brand of christianity -- the number of lost souls is staggering.


The Christian’s Delusion Of Salvation

God -- who so loved the WORLD -- initiated a plan, of restoration, by sending his son, to be tortured, crucified and sacrificed, to save humanity. Sinful, humanity -- who couldn't possibly save themselves -- in the end, must accept and believe in Jesus, so they can be saved and yet, the other 70% of the world -- at this moment in time -- are other religions, the non-religious, or unbelievers, who are not bible-believing Christians. Didn't God consider his other earthly children, when he put his feeble, plan into action? Looks like Jesus' torturous, sacrifice was futile. God's inept, plan is incapable of saving everyone and hinges on the very ones who couldn't save themselves, in the first place. God’s plan for salvation is tragically flawed, wholly inadequate and morbidly negligent. The number of lost souls, throughout history, is monumentally, mind-blowing. Christianity is nothing but an illusion, which gorges itself, on gullibility and ignorance.

--S.

ifeelfine72 said...

Havok: I asked Theological Discourse what denomination he or she is but so far TD has declined to answer . . . I guess it's easier to hide behind the label "Christian" than have a discussion.

Havok said...

Ifeelfine72, it certainly does sound more impressive when you can summon the beliefs of 2billion people to your cause, but it is handy to be able to dismiss any group you choose as not being mainstream. TD is simply trying to get the best of both worlds.

I'm curious as to how TD got this 2 billion figure, because from what I understand the number is an estimate of those people who would self identify as Christian, which would certainly include the JW's :-)

Theological Discourse said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Theological Discourse said...

Havok and I feelfine

I don't deal with hypocrites like yourselves. You apply criticism and scrutiny to me, but refuse to apply the same criticism and scrutiny to Loftus when he dodges points and questions and lies.

Your double standards aren't your only faults, you are also severely lacking in the fields of critical thinking and theology!

The Jehovah witness themselves don't even consider themselves Christians

http://www.counterfeitchristians.info/index.html

Furthermore Havok doesn't seem to be able to read since I said Jehovah witness are not included in the 2 billion figure.

Where I got the numbers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups

Christianity: 2.1 billion, with major branches as follows

I subtracted the numbers of Jehovah witness and Mormons, so it roughly comes out to 2 billion when rounded.

Your double standards are sad and pitiful, but it doesn't surprise me as the creator of this laughable site seems to be just as illogical, hypocritical, and irrational as the people that post here. This was proved in this thread alone.

Philip R Kreyche said...

I like how TD is fine with thinking that God would be okay with saving only 30% of current living humans from eternal torture.

Can you imagine? God, in all His Glory, sitting up in Heaven, saying "Hm, well, at least SOME of them are getting in. Oh well! Not like I can do anything about it, even though I'm God!"

Of course the blame is on vastly inferior and less capable humanity. Anything to make God make sense.

Havok said...

TD: Furthermore Havok doesn't seem to be able to read since I said Jehovah witness are not included in the 2 billion figure.

And I acknowledged that, and asked how many other sects fit your definition of "Real Christians"tm.
If the link you posted represents your own views in any way, then I doubt you're being honest in putting forward that 2 billion figure.

TD: I subtracted the numbers of Jehovah witness and Mormons, so it roughly comes out to 2 billion when rounded.

Good for you. A grasp of basic mathematics is important in life :-)

So, have you gone through all of the other sects included in the "2 billion" removed the other "fakes"?

Judging from a brief look at the website, Catholics (1 billion of them) wouldn't seem to be "Real Christians". We've just cut your number in half, should we continue on down the list? :-)

Which sect do you belong to again?

sconnor said...

TD,

Yes, TD, please share; what's your idiosyncratic definition of a true christian -- you know -- the ones who are worthy of the bliss of paradise, while the rest of god's children are damned?

Judging by your intellectual prowess and your superiority, in critical thinking, and your vast knowledge of theology, I'm sure you can give us an excellent, thorough, definition of who are the true christians.

Waiting......

I don't deal with hypocrites like yourselves. You apply criticism and scrutiny to me, but refuse to apply the same criticism and scrutiny... dodges points and questions and lies...Your double standards are sad and pitiful, but it doesn't surprise me as the creator of this laughable site seems to be just as illogical, hypocritical, and irrational as the people that post here. This was proved in this thread alone.

So instead of engaging us now, you're on the defensive -- moanin' and groanin', doing, exactly, what you whining about -- dodging points and questions.

Your diverging speaks volumes. Either put up or shut up.

--S.

sconnor said...

Uh, oh; there's more...

The Jehovah witness themselves don't even consider themselves Christians

Oh TD your observations and conclusions are truly stellar and unparalleled.

Go to this JW official website Authorized Site of the Office of Public Information of Jehovah's Witnesses

It says in the frequently asked questions:

Are you Christians?

Yes. We follow Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and put faith in the ransom sacrifice he provided for the salvation of mankind. We imitate his example in preaching and teaching and in our dealings with fellow humans. We also look forward to living in true peace on earth under his heavenly Kingdom.

Oh noooo, TD. What to do; what to do?

Care to equivocate?

Still waiting............

--S.

Gandolf said...

Philip R Kreyche said..."I like how TD is fine with thinking that God would be okay with saving only 30% of current living humans from eternal torture.

Can you imagine? God, in all His Glory, sitting up in Heaven, saying "Hm, well, at least SOME of them are getting in. Oh well! Not like I can do anything about it, even though I'm God!"

Of course the blame is on vastly inferior and less capable humanity. Anything to make God make sense."

-------------------------

God: Now you Roman Catholics stand in that line there Mormons there Anglicans there Baptists there United and uniting churches there Brethren there and jehovahs witness there etc etc etc.

God:all you lot over here i give eternal life in heaven ,but you you you and you etc over there disregarded my teachings in the bible you get a hell of a hiding.You were just not proper Christians see.

Hellbound folk: but but but :( we really honestly believed what we believed .We all read the same book.We as your children honestly thought we had translated it right.Come on God it obviously wasnt that easy to decipher heck look how many had different ideas huh!.

God: Stop bickering!, who said i had to make it easy enough for children to read and understand?.I named you as my children yes but that does not mean i cant expect you to act like extra specially smart adults.I make the rules round here remember! most GOOD faithful folk know that as im the creator im quite within my rights to play the game as i wish.Hell we cant have to many flooding these heavens besides what would keep the fires stoked down there in hell.And anyway how ever would wise men on earth learned in scripture ever be able to make a living out of being leaders,if these scriptures of mine were so simple and easy that there was no room for mistakes to be made. :)