For god worshipers: is it okay to call atheists killers?

[Timminz]

I'm not sure whose jimmies pimpdave is trying to rustle. I like to think it's not me, that there is some other Catholic person here he's trying to annoy. If someone can prove that there is no one else and that these threads are directed at me, I may have to rethink my further involvement with pimpdave.

Maybe he's honestly outraged about the apparent complacency of most Catholics, regarding this topic.

I know it bothers me.

[universalchiro]

So I see my thread, which was completely equal to any other thread asking atheists things was locked.

So, god worshipers, why is it okay for you to say that the only reason people aren't killing each other wantonly in the street is because your particular Invisible Sky Wizard is being worshiped, but it's wrong for us atheists to ask you about similar things related to your version of the world?

Also, can someone clarify the concept of a sin of omission? How is it not a sin to allow child rape to go on constantly and do nothing but try to cover it up? Is that what your holy incarnation on the planet (notice I'm not naming any named faiths so I'm not "bashing religion", just being vague the way god worshipers are when they refer to atheists and call us all murderers and sadistic homosexuals who abort babies for sport).

Great, thanks!

I feel your pain pimpdave. I concur. There isn't much worse than molesting innocence from children )Matthew 18:3-7). Especially worse when its someone professing to be above reproach, supposedly representing God on earth, yet vile & wicked & selfish to the core. That so turns my stomach and makes me want to puke. They are wolves in sheep's clothing. Washed & clean on the outside, but filthy dirty on the inside. Yuck!

I'm not catholic, but it seems unnatural to require some of/all of their leaders to be single, not married, therefore requiring no sex, sexual desire is going to come out sideways, perverted & unnatural. Maybe they should allow those who need to get married to do so (1 Corinthians 7:1-7). But certainly those that have raped, should not be allowed to still lead. But every denomination has wolves in sheep clothing. This doesn't impune God or His word, this reveals there is massive need of church discipline to expose non-believers pretending to be a Christian. That's why Jesus laid out the order of church discipline in Matthew 18:15-19.

As far as Christians bashing Atheist: James 2:10-11 says (paraphrased) if you violate one jot (stroke of pen to form a letter in the alphabet ) or one tittle (dot of a letter in the alphabet ) of the law , you have violated the whole law. Guilty as though committed every sin.
Therefore, when a Christian witnesses to an atheist or one who has sinned, it should be eye to eye, as an equal sinner, rather than from a pious position of holiness. Informing the sinner that there is a path to be free from guilt & punishment of sin. God's commands & laws are impossible to fully keep. That is why all have sinned. God in His perfect Holiness is justified to punish a transgressor of His law. But God is so loving that before He formed the earth, He predetermined to nail His only Son on the cross to pay in full the cost of sin to all those who believe.

[thegreekdog]

I'm not sure whose jimmies pimpdave is trying to rustle. I like to think it's not me, that there is some other Catholic person here he's trying to annoy. If someone can prove that there is no one else and that these threads are directed at me, I may have to rethink my further involvement with pimpdave.

Maybe he's honestly outraged about the apparent complacency of most Catholics, regarding this topic.

I know it bothers me.

You know, you're right. That must be it.

[pimpdave]

Wow, tgd, narcissist much? Maybe you're the new Professional Mirror Investigator...

Is it really so shocking that I might be so repulsed by the culture of child rape in god worshiping organizations that I might think maybe something should be done about it? And if the god worshipers refuse to act, who will stop it?

My ancestors fought and bled and one died in battle because they believed in abolition. But I guess your family would have come up with some excuse about how black people should be slaves, or how that "peculiar institution" does more good than harm, or something. You must be so proud!

It turns my stomach that you and john9blue would even make such arguments, cause, I mean, that's exactly how Jesus handled the question of money changers in the temple, right? Oh wait.

So to quote Steve Martin, "Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me!"

But the rule of law should apply to clerics just as much as it does to teachers or Penn State coaches. Enough covering up. Enough abuse allowed to continue.

[john9blue]

Obviously, any victim is going to take a harder view of those they were victimized by than "everyone else"...that's only natural, and I don't think it's fair to make that comparison, really.

I'm only jostling john about his utilitarianism.

so i'm going to assume your comment wasn't actually well thought out or meaningful and leave it at that. if you genuinely want me to tell you why you're wrong, then let me know.

i think the fact that andy isn't in a position to protect dave anymore is part of the reason why that thread was locked.

That is seriously funny. I mean, I smirked, but I smirked hard. You know andy did a good job as a moderator when john9blue thinks andy is protecting pimpdave and pimpdave always thought that andy was being unfair to him.

pimpdave is a whiner and i have good reason to believe that andy didn't moderate dave effectively during his mod days.

[BigBallinStalin]

Obviously, any victim is going to take a harder view of those they were victimized by than "everyone else"...that's only natural, and I don't think it's fair to make that comparison, really.

I'm only jostling john about his utilitarianism.

so i'm going to assume your comment wasn't actually well thought out or meaningful and leave it at that. if you genuinely want me to tell you why you're wrong, then let me know.

My comment underlines what I've already addressed with your stance on utilitarianism. You can continue ignoring the problems of utilitarianism and feel falsely superior, or you can put on your big boy pants and get serious:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=192334&p=4211009&hilit=utilitarianism#p4211009

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=192334&p=4211021&hilit=utilitarianism#p4211021

[thegreekdog]

pimpdave is a whiner and i have good reason to believe that andy didn't moderate dave effectively during his mod days.

No, you really don't have good reason to believe that. I have good reason to believe that andy moderated pimpdave and everyone else effectively (since I was, you know, a moderator). But we can start another thread on how you think pimpdave should have been moderated.

[pimpdave]

thegreekdog, I am still anxiously awaiting your justification and defense of slavery.

[john9blue]

probably because they, like me, think the catholic church does more good than harm.

I wonder how the victims and their families and friends run that cost-benefit analysis.

this comment is fucking hilarious to read after just having responded to BBS' criticism of utilitarianism as subjective and emotionally-driven.

[thegreekdog]

thegreekdog, I am still anxiously awaiting your justification and defense of slavery.

My family owned numerous slaves (plantation owners in Georgia - the Papodapoulis family). They took care of them and without my family to take care of them, the slaves would have been denigrated to a feeble existence, barely ekeing out a living. But they were fed, sheltered, and learned to read (my great-great-whatever-grandmother was a fine upstanding Greek Southernor). Thankfully, my ancestors were too rich to take part in the Civil War, but did provide financial backing to various Georgian militias and hired a number of Turks to form a sort of 19th century Varangian guard. I suspect one of the grapeshot cannisters that took out your great-great-whatever-grandfather was paid for by my ancestors. My great-great-whatever-uncle took a shot at Sherman when he was marching through Georgia, but was sadly unsuccessful.

[jonesthecurl]

Last slavery my family was involved with was probably back in the 5th century when some of my Saxon ancestors might have owned some of my Celtic ones.

[thegreekdog]

Last slavery my family was involved with was probably back in the 5th century when some of my Saxon ancestors might have owned some of my Celtic ones.

I can only assume that at some point in my family's history, they were either slave holders or slaves themselves.

[thegreekdog]

My ancestors fought and bled and one died in battle because they believed in abolition.

I don't think that's enough pimpdave. If we are being consistent, your ancestors should have never come to the United States because slavery was in existence here. Furthermore, your Civil War-era ancestors, if they had the unfortunate luck of being born in a pro-slavery United States, should have immediately rebelled against the government or, alternatively, left the country for a nation that did not permit or encourage slavery. Since your ancestors didn't do those things, they were massive, proven racists.

[Woodruff]

Yipes! Maybe this was common knowledge...I'd never heard it before:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/06/27/girl-slaves-of-catholic-magdalene-asylums-to-receive-compensation-but-not-from-the-church/

[PLAYER57832]

Per the title (not actually asked below) -- the answer is its OK if they ARE killers, else not.

So I see my thread, which was completely equal to any other thread asking atheists things was locked.

So, god worshipers, why is it okay for you to say that the only reason people aren't killing each other wantonly in the street is because your particular Invisible Sky Wizard is being worshiped, but it's wrong for us atheists to ask you about similar things related to your version of the world?

Anyone saying that is misguided.

The truth is that you can be a "good" person, but not be "saved", not be a "believer" OR you can be a bad person and yet be redeemed.

Also, can someone clarify the concept of a sin of omission? How is it not a sin to allow child rape to go on constantly and do nothing but try to cover it up?

That is certainly a sin.

However, in the specific cases to which you elude (addressed more fully in other threads), the people involved deluded themselves into thinking that they were actually "doing something" and so forth. This is because, ultimatley, no matter what church you belong to, it is occupied and even led (on Earth) by humans.

As a Protestant, I say that is why we are not to give ANY human the kind of ultimate authority and control seen in the Roman Catholic Church. Protestants are guilty of ills as well, but they tend to be less widespread and tend to be discovered sooner because there is not such a widespread and ingrained hierarchy -- but then, Protestants are perhaps more "inventive" in our sins. You see murders, child abusers and all sorts nailed from Protestant clergy.

Ultimately, both systems have downfalls and benefits, but none is really representative of God or God's will fully. We are instead human beings trying to follow the correct path.

Is that what your holy incarnation on the planet (notice I'm not naming any named faiths so I'm not "bashing religion", just being vague the way god worshipers are when they refer to atheists and call us all murderers and sadistic homosexuals who abort babies for sport).

Great, thanks!

Well, per the last, I have been accused of that quite a bit since I am against making abortion utterly illegal or mostly illegal, Its an indication of lack of thought on the pat of the speakers, not of the religions they claim to represent.

[PLAYER57832]

Yipes! Maybe this was common knowledge...I'd never heard it before:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/06/27/girl-slaves-of-catholic-magdalene-asylums-to-receive-compensation-but-not-from-the-church/

NPR has done several stories on this. the "Magdalene girls". Apparently a lot of the girls were basically what we would call foster kids, not really trouble makers at all. This is the first I have heard about the atheist giving money, though. Last I heard, they won a judgement in Ireland, but I may have gotten things mixed up.

[PLAYER57832]

Last slavery my family was involved with was probably back in the 5th century when some of my Saxon ancestors might have owned some of my Celtic ones.

LOL... yeah, Denmark is known as the first nation to have done away with slavery (someone else can say if that's really true or not). So it looks like I might be "clear" on that front, though I am not sure that the seafarers were clean of "the trade".

On my mother side, depending on how you calculate, I have relatives on both sides of the civil war and back to the revolution OR her history is just unknown, perhaps Navaho. My husband's family has been here since before the American revolution and was apparently active in the underground railroad.

But.. speaking of Native Americans, not everyone is aware that some tribes held slaves.

[jonesthecurl]

Last slavery my family was involved with was probably back in the 5th century when some of my Saxon ancestors might have owned some of my Celtic ones.

LOL... yeah, Denmark is known as the first nation to have done away with slavery (someone else can say if that's really true or not). So it looks like I might be "clear" on that front, though I am not sure that the seafarers were clean of "the trade".

On my mother side, depending on how you calculate, I have relatives on both sides of the civil war and back to the revolution OR her history is just unknown, perhaps Navaho. My husband's family has been here since before the American revolution and was apparently active in the underground railroad.

But.. speaking of Native Americans, not everyone is aware that some tribes held slaves.

Yes they did, both before the europeans arrived (when the slaves'd be from another tribe), and after (when they would be captives or sometimes bought). At a localCherokee pow-wow I went to, a lot of the Cherokee were black. I assume that they were adopted into the Cherokee, recently or way back - I suspect in some cases the adoptees were originally slaves. This is pretty much guesswork on my part though.

[Woodruff]

At least they're repentant:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/02/us/dolan-sought-vatican-permission-to-shield-assets.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[PLAYER57832]

But.. speaking of Native Americans, not everyone is aware that some tribes held slaves.

Yes they did, both before the europeans arrived (when the slaves'd be from another tribe), and after (when they would be captives or sometimes bought). At a localCherokee pow-wow I went to, a lot of the Cherokee were black. I assume that they were adopted into the Cherokee, recently or way back - I suspect in some cases the adoptees were originally slaves. This is pretty much guesswork on my part though.

This happened, but some native Americans were also very "black" looking, even if not specifically negroid.