The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity?

It Stands to Reason ^ | Gregory Koukl

[zest for life]

I'm not the one who spews hate, just because someone holds a different view other than mine, your the one who does that, see your reply #38, If you had half a chance, you sure would love to shut me up, would'nt you?

[tpaine]

This post is NOT 'spewing hate':

"You are either begging the guestion, or can't understand basic english."

'Intolerance' is evil, imho, no matter who practices it. -#38-

------------ You appear to be quite confused. - But by all means, continue with your weird statements. It's amusing to see you trash your own credibility.

[A.J.Armitage]

Few people have been killed "in the name of atheism." Millions were killed in the name of Communism.

"Millions of people have been killed in the name of Christianity."

"No! They were killed in the name of Methodism."

[A.J.Armitage]

I was about to tell you to look at the context. The context is what you need to do in order to be saved, and your statement otherwise is nothing but a lie.

[restornu]

Who Killed MADELYN O'HARE?

It wasn't a Christian nor A Beliver in God! She was killed by her own kind who dismembered her body as well as others family, something like the Telliban would do to their own.

You either worship God or the Satan.

Everything has two sides= left- right ; up-down ; night-day ; good-evil etc. no such thing as a non- beliver we all believe in something (even the devil displays good behavior at times to decieve you.)

[Khepera]

And your point is that I should accept any sort of thing even you. Your funny.

[zest for life]

This post is NOT 'spewing hate':

There, corrected your reply again, still no charge!

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Really? More people have been killed in the name of "not having belief in any deities" in 100 years than in the name of "God" in 2000? Do you have any documentation for such?

Read the article.  References were listed that implicated communist Russia, communist China, and communist Cambodia.  Add to that the Nazis, and you have a very bloody picture indeed.

[Dimensio]

>Really? More people have been killed in the name of "not having belief in any deities" in 100 years than in the name of "God" in 2000? Do you have any documentation for such?

Read the article. References were listed that implicated communist Russia, communist China, and communist Cambodia. Add to that the Nazis, and you have a very bloody picture indeed.

And, like I said earlier, those atrocities were committed in the name of advancing a political agenda, not in the name of "no belief in deities" itself, at least not by any historical accounting that I've seen.

[tpaine]

How do you 'do' a context? And, - how would context save you?

[A.J.Armitage]

How do you 'do' a context? And, - how would context save you?

You're not making any sense. No one said anything about context saving. The context was his statement of what does save.

[tpaine]

You said, at #84:

"The context is what you need to do in order to be saved,"

Now you said:

"The context was his statement of what does save."

Neither of the above make ANY sense. Explain.

[A.J.Armitage]

You said, at #84:

"The context is what you need to do in order to be saved,"

Now you said:

"The context was his statement of what does save."

Neither of the above make ANY sense. Explain.

It makes perfect sense. Pretending to be unable to figure out the meanings of simple English sentences isn't a good debating tactic. Unless you really are a moron. In either case, I thought better of you.

[tpaine]

And I, you. -- Have some tolerance. - I'll ignore your obtuse brand of english, if you ignore mine.

[A.J.Armitage]

My "brand" of English isn't obtuse at all. In case you really didn't get it, I'll explain as simply as I can. He said that in order to be saved unaved people need to "repent and actually change what they think and do". That's the context of what he said next.

[tpaine]

Good grief, now you want to argue the context of what someone else said, when you can't explain your own english.

I give up. Endit.

[WRhine]

The real answer to the headline question is that anytime groups of people rally around a religious theology or political ideology to the extent that they become fanatical, that group of people are capable of terrible things. History is replete with examples such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Radical Islam, Jihads, Crusades etc. Today the problem is radical Islam. Tomorrow it will probably be some other whacked out extremist movement that believes, really believes, that they must conquer and convert all peoples of the world to their perfect vision. I am Christian and I see certain elements in my faith that have the “potential” to become every bit as radical as the Taliban under the right (or perhaps wrong) conditions.

[A.J.Armitage]

I wanted to argue the context to begin with(actually, you mentioned it first, but anyway...). For some reason you got hung up on some weird confusion over what I meant by "context", so I explained it.

[tpaine]

Shhhh. - Reason is not tolerated om this thread.