are the gracies religious?

[Einarr]

You guys are way off track. There is only one thing that matters. When you die and stand before God, you will need to answer for your sin. The penalty of sin is death and separation from God. That penalty HAS to be paid.

Are you going to pay it? Or, will you allow Jesus Christ to pay it for you?

Don't be too proud to tap.

Why should we believe in your god and not others? Why not the Shinto gods? Or Buddha? Or Odin? Odin makes Jesus looks like a sissy little girl, I'll go with him.

Hail Odin!

 

[snakeybizz]

The author of that quote is blaming God for the actions of evil men. The sad part is that he seeks to make himself god by judging the creator.

You can shake your fist at God all you want because you THINK you know how to do it better. In the end, only one thing matters:

Who is going to pay for your sin?

Are you going to do it? Because the penalty of sin is eternal death.

Or, will you let the Savior of the human race do it for you?

bat shit crazy

 

[Deleted member 429137]

As for what happened with the American Indians, I think you are dramatically underestimating the systematic policy of genocide that was undertaken in the name of Manifest Destiny. Disease was certainly a factor, but so were military actions and forced removal. It is widely considered to be intentional ethnic cleansing.

75-95% of indigenous peoples were wiped out by disease they had no immunity to. It is the defining factor that separates the successful colonization of North America vs. any other land.

White people seem to have established themselves pretty firmly in Australia without succumbing to disease. And there are much more significant reasons than disease for the British leaving India, apartheid ending in South Africa, Hong Kong going back to China, etc.

You did not understand what I wrote. I do not see how you could so totally misunderstand what I wrote. I may have to go back and see if I had some sort of stroke while I was writing it.

Disease did not wipe out the natives in those locations: hence, white people were unable to so totally take ownership of the land.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

Your American slavery example that you just gave is another good illustration. But to the point about atheist leaders always wanting murder and theft to be illegal, historically they like keep it that way to prevent other people from doing it to them. When they want to do it to other people though, suddenly it is totally legal and necessary for state security.

If you were among the 20 million or so people murdered by the atheist Joseph Stalin, the fact that it would have been illegal for you to kill Stalin but it was not illegal for him to kill you seems cold comfort.

Not sure what you're talking about here. I never said atheist leaders always want murder and theft to be illegal. But even if I did, I think your assertion that "historically [atheist leaders] like to keep it that way to prevent other people from doing it to them" requires you to provide an example of a Christian or religious leader who made it legal for people to kill him. Otherwise that's just such a bonkers statement that I'm again worried I might be having a stroke.

 

[Balto]

75-95% of indigenous peoples were wiped out by disease they had no immunity to. It is the defining factor that separates the successful colonization of North America vs. any other land.



You did not understand what I wrote. I do not see how you could so totally misunderstand what I wrote. I may have to go back and see if I had some sort of stroke while I was writing it.

Disease did not wipe out the natives in those locations: hence, white people were unable to so totally take ownership of the land.

Oh okay I see what you meant to say now. Yeah I read you wrong initially.

I still don't agree coincidental disease is the main factor though. Also when you say North America vs any other land, you are ignoring Australia.

 

[Balto]

Not sure what you're talking about here. I never said atheist leaders always want murder and theft to be illegal. But even if I did, I think your assertion that "historically [atheist leaders] like to keep it that way to prevent other people from doing it to them" requires you to provide an example of a Christian or religious leader who made it legal for people to kill him. Otherwise that's just such a bonkers statement that I'm again worried I might be having a stroke.

It requires no such example. There are certainly examples of religious leaders committing mass murder the same way as certain atheist leaders. And that was my point. That those who want to find ways to talk themselves into murdering others are able to do so whether they are religious or not.

You will also find examples of atheist leaders being moral, and you will find examples of religious leaders doing the same.

 

[Balto]

Not sure what you're talking about here. I never said atheist leaders always want murder and theft to be illegal.

Where I got that from:

Most societies punish murder and theft harshly even though they have different religions. Pretty sure every atheist would want those things to remain illegal.

"Atheist leaders" are a subset of "every atheist".

 

[Deleted member 429137]

Oh okay I see what you meant to say now. Yeah I read you wrong initially.

I still don't agree coincidental disease is the main factor though. Also when you say North America vs any other land, you are ignoring Australia.

From the Australian Bureau of Statistics:

There are no accurate estimates of the population of Australia before European settlement. Estimates were based on post-1788 observations of a population already reduced by introduced diseases and other factors, and range from a minimum pre-1788 population of 315,000 to over one million people. Recent archaeological evidence suggests that a population of 750,000 Indigenous peoples could have been sustained.

Whatever the size of the Indigenous population before European settlement, it declined dramatically under the impact of new diseases, repressive and often brutal treatment, dispossession, and social and cultural disruption and disintegration (see the article Statistics on the Indigenous Peoples of Australia, in Year Book Australia 1994). The decline of the Indigenous population continued well into the 20th century.

1. It had a tiny population to begin with.

2. It was also radically impacted by disease.

I guess it could be argued that it followed the same mold as North America. Due to it's tiny population, though, I never considered its colonization to be on the same level of India, China, the Americas, etc.

 

[Balto]

From the Australian Bureau of Statistics:



1. It had a tiny population to begin with.

2. It was also radically impacted by disease.

I guess it could be argued that it followed the same mold as North America. Due to it's tiny population, though, I never considered its colonization to be on the same level of India, China, the Americas, etc.

I don't think we will agree on this.

Even in the statement you quoted, you are picking out the disease part of the statement while ignoring the "repressive and often brutal treatment, dispossession, and social and cultural disruption and disintegration" part of the statement.

I feel that the part you are leaving out is very significant. I think we just have to disagree on that.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

Where I got that from:



"Atheist leaders" are a subset of "every atheist".

I don't understand. Even if you infer that statement from what I said... you're saying that atheist leaders supporting the illegality of murder and theft somehow undermines what I said? Or supports the idea of religion? Can you give me more info on what you're asserting here?

 

[Deleted member 429137]

I don't think we will agree on this.

Even in the statement you quoted, you are picking out the disease part of the statement while ignoring the "repressive and often brutal treatment, dispossession, and social and cultural disruption and disintegration" part of the statement.

I feel that the part you are leaving out is very significant. I think we just have to disagree on that.

We're going to have to leave Australia aside because I don't know enough about it other than it had a small population and even that tiny population was affected by disease.

However, you are completely missing the significance of disease wiping out 75-95% of indigenous peoples in North America. Can you source non-disease related genocide as the defining factor of colonization?

 

[Balto]

I don't understand. Even if you infer that statement from what I said... you're saying that atheist leaders supporting the illegality of murder and theft somehow undermines what I said? Or supports the idea of religion? Can you give me more info on what you're asserting here?

What I am saying is that there have been good, moral leaders throughout history, both religious and non-religious. There have also been bad, evil leaders throughout history, both religious and non-religious.

I was refuting an earlier statement that if you can convince yourself of a God that wants you to be good, you can just as easily convince yourself of a God that wants you to be bad. My point was that, while true, that is no different than not having a God. And I gave examples of non-religious people who convinced themselves that they should do evil things.

So I don't think religion or non-religion is a good indicator of morality. People do evil in the name of religion all the time. People also do evil in the name of no religion all the time as well.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

It requires no such example. There are certainly examples of religious leaders committing mass murder the same way as certain atheist leaders. And that was my point. That those who want to find ways to talk themselves into murdering others are able to do so whether they are religious or not.

You will also find examples of atheist leaders being moral, and you will find examples of religious leaders doing the same.

When you put it like this, I agree that it requires no such example, but it also seems to be a completely unnecessary statement to make.

But to the point about atheist leaders always wanting murder and theft to be illegal, historically they like keep it that way to prevent other people from doing it to them. When they want to do it to other people though, suddenly it is totally legal and necessary for state security.

If you were among the 20 million or so people murdered by the atheist Joseph Stalin, the fact that it would have been illegal for you to kill Stalin but it was not illegal for him to kill you seems cold comfort.

I do not understand what point you were trying to make here if there is no difference between an atheist and religious leader in this regard.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

I was refuting an earlier statement that if you can convince yourself of a God that wants you to be good, you can just as easily convince yourself of a God that wants you to be bad.

Okay. I never made that statement, so I did not understand what you were trying to say to me.

 

[Balto]

We're going to have to leave Australia aside because I don't know enough about it other than it had a small population and even that tiny population was affected by disease.

However, you are completely missing the significance of disease wiping out 75-95% of indigenous peoples in North America. Can you source non-disease related genocide as the defining factor of colonization?

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

Sources at the bottom. First four sources refer to it as a policy of ethnic cleansing. That is a lot different than just coincidentally getting sick.

Also, disease deaths can still be murder. A lot of the victims in the concentration camps in WWII died of disease, but it is still murder.

 

[Balto]

Okay. I never made that statement, so I did not understand what you were trying to say to me.

I was replying to TsukinoKage (why I quoted him in the reply).

 

[Deleted member 429137]

I was replying to TsukinoKage (why I quoted him in the reply).

lol well take your first reply to me and direct it to him.

 

[Balto]

lol well take your first reply to me and direct it to him.

So directed.

 

[Oldguy]

Why should we believe in your god and not others? Why not the Shinto gods? Or Buddha? Or Odin? Odin makes Jesus looks like a sissy little girl, I'll go with him.

Hail Odin!

Because my God came to earth, was sinless, died and rose again on the third day. Buddha is still in the grave.

 

[Thai Otoshi]

Because my God came to earth, was sinless, died and rose again on the third day. Buddha is still in the grave.

OR

....because you were raised to believe that the God your community worshipped is the one you should be worshipping.

From the outside looking in, this religious dick measuring looks silly.