China on course to have the world's largest Christian congregation in 15 years - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;44588036]Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, North Korea. Religion is often just a scape-goat for ignorance.[/QUOTE] If you go back a bit (actually a bit more) further you'd see that its influence in Europe was in part quite destructive. Most cultural heritage around here is actually quite recent (some 100 years) for example, the only things that seem to have survived from before are fairy tales (which can be extremely ancient though). Christianity happens to be one of the more authoritarian and exclusionary religions (like the other abrahamitic ones (except the Bahá'í Faith which seems to be extremely inclusionary), since they share some core tenets about the nature of their god; It obviously varies with the surrounding society and circumstance though, in that minorities seem to be more tolerant.), so it can easily wreak havoc on local culture when it becomes prominent. Maybe it's not as bad a problem as before since we can archive information properly without it degrading now. I'm still critical of the effect it has on society though. I'm not saying these religions are inherently evil since the beliefs are usually well-meaning, but I think there's a tendency to do more harm than good if the previous status quo was less focused on the afterworld.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;44600028]Why would God make impossible standards?[/QUOTE] He did not make them in the sense that he arbitrarily conceived of them and forced them upon us in our current corrupt state, instead we had the choice to follow the law to perfection or to seek our own law, ultimately we all have chosen the latter and as a result have made perfection unattainable for each and every one of us through our own power.

why

[QUOTE=cyanidem;44588318]Mankind: 1 Step forward, 2 steps back.[/QUOTE] As we can see with you being a shining example.

Is it just me or is China just the USA, except with a 50 year delay on everything?

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;44597564]Honestly the only christian Canadians I've met are Chinese :v: All the white people out here are atheists, and white christians seem to huddle in their own social communities or something because I rarely come into contact with them.[/QUOTE] You've never been to Alberta, have you? Because I'd say the majority of people I know are white and identify as Christian.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;44601067]Well he could just un-corrupt us, but I guess that'd be too much work or something? Fuck, if he's the god in the bible he can do whatever he wants.[/QUOTE] Justice is good. If we have done wrong, then it would be evil to not demand the just payment. Christianity teaches this payment was taken by Christ for us. A judge who forgives evil with no payment given is a bad judge. [editline]20th April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Explosions;44596527]If you would be raping and murdering without the threat of punishment, then by all means please continue believing. If you're so messed up that you need some simplistic punishment vs reward system to stay in line, then I hope you stick with it. Luckily, the majority of the world doesn't operate on that system.[/QUOTE] This strawman/ad hominem always seems to be the default response. Nothing in my post even hinted that everyone would "rape and murder" without punishment, but that without consequences morals are based on emotion, not logic, and that emotion as a purely irrational cause cannot be argued for in any compelling fashion.

[QUOTE=Taepodong-2;44601623]You've never been to Alberta, have you? Because I'd say the majority of people I know are white and identify as Christian.[/QUOTE] Depends on where.

[QUOTE=sgman91;44594301]Only someone with no knowledge of Christian history would make this comment. The atrocities committed in the name of Christianity during the middle ages were obviously for political benefit. [/QUOTE] They were able to happen because people blindly accepted what the religious and political authorities told them. If you have someone who believes the christian god, and that someone (like the pope) is in contact with them: then it is only logical that you would listen to what they tell you to do, or to justify. Religion isn't dangerous because it has done bad things. But because it's against people thinking for themselves, logically thinking through situations, and being moral for being moral: not because they'll get rewarded or punished [QUOTE=sgman91;44594301] The doctrines of the modern church are MUCH closer to the doctrines of the early fathers (Ignatius, Clement, Justin Martyr, Augustine of Hippo, etc.) than those of the middle ages. [/QUOTE] If so then DAMN they were some fine specimen of human rights activists. It's very unlikely they even though about equal rights for both women and men, for trans*, gays, etc... Which is what the church is only now starting to accept. It's sort of lucky that we've fallen into a wishy-washy belief state almost, since it allows people to say "Yeah, I'm christian" "but I don't believe that gays should burn in hell"; since it forces churches to conform to the member's status (or they find another religion). But I digress, the point is that Religion is spreading scientific ignorance, and in a country that's having as many problems as China this is a very bad thing.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;44602741]They were able to happen because people blindly accepted what the religious and political authorities told them. If you have someone who believes the christian god, and that someone (like the pope) is in contact with them: then it is only logical that you would listen to what they tell you to do, or to justify. Religion isn't dangerous because it has done bad things. But because it's against people thinking for themselves, logically thinking through situations, and being moral for being moral: not because they'll get rewarded or punished[/QUOTE] It's kind of hard to learn on your own when the Bible is only translated in a language that you don't know how to read. What does "being moral for being moral" even mean? "Good" and "Bad" aren't even objective statements outside of divine law.

[QUOTE=sgman91;44602752] What does "being moral for being moral" even mean? "Good" and "Bad" aren't even objective statements outside of divine law.[/QUOTE] Basically, do unto others as you would have them do to you. (Secular Humanism) I'm a living animal, I feel pain, I want to live, I want to be respected. Since everyone else is (As far as I can tell) also a living animal, I would assume that they also want the same things. For things that are disagreed upon, there should (and is) a discussion on how it should be treated. If we all lived by "God's absolute moral standards" then we would be a lot more like Africa.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;44602829]Basically, do unto others as you would have them do to you. (Secular Humanism) I'm a living animal, I feel pain, I want to live, I want to be respected. Since everyone else is (As far as I can tell) also a living animal, I would assume that they also want the same things. For things that are disagreed upon, there should (and is) a discussion on how it should be treated. If we all lived by "God's absolute moral standards" then we would be a lot more like Africa.[/QUOTE] That sounds nice and all, but it's not compelling. It assumes that other's interests are equally as important as your own. Please give a logical proof based on fact for that assumption. I challenge that you can't because it's based on emotion, not fact.

[QUOTE=sgman91;44602861]That sounds nice and all, but it's not compelling. It assumes that other's interests are equally as important as my own. Please give a logical proof based on fact for that assumption.[/QUOTE] You're a human, I'm a human. Both of us should respect each other, our lives, and our rights. I mean, or we can just go grab guns and kill each other, but that weeds us out and leaves the rest whom actually do left. Unless you want me to prove we're human, in which case I could look at DNA samples and show it, unless you're a solipsist, in which case you need evidence for that. [quote]On the whole, humans desire the following: avoidance of death and suffering, and the achievement of happiness. Most humans realize that these desires are easiest achieved in an environment where the infliction of death and suffering are prohibited and the pursuit of happiness is permitted. Most humans also realize that the mores/laws that prevent their neighbors from harming them also prohibit them from harming their neighbors. Thus, within the framework of this understanding lies the foundation of secular morality.[/quote] Legally, socially, and biologically speaking, it's in your long term interests to be moral to others, we are social animals and as such we have social responsibilities, such as morality.

[QUOTE=sgman91;44602861]That sounds nice and all, but it's not compelling. It assumes that other's interests are equally as important as your own. Please give a logical proof based on fact for that assumption. I challenge that you can't because it's based on emotion, not fact.[/QUOTE] whenever I hear you talk about how you think athiests and secularists feel, it's like we're all blood thirsty murderers in your eyes because we don't use an "objective" system to determine morality.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44602902]whenever I hear you talk about how you think athiests and secularists feel, it's like we're all blood thirsty murderers in your eyes because we don't use an "objective" system to determine morality.[/QUOTE] It would be more accurate to say that I think atheists like to claim rationality and logical thinking as their preeminent weapons... until it doesn't suit them. They have no problem falling back onto emotion when it's necessary to preserve the society they personally desire. [QUOTE]You're a human, I'm a human. Both of us should respect each other, our lives, and our rights. I mean, or we can just go grab guns and kill each other, but that weeds us out and leaves the rest whom actually do left.[/QUOTE] That's a false dilemma. An obvious third choice is that you lie, cheat, and steal your way to the top while everyone else tries to be "moral." This both preserves society and raises your own position. Someone fudging on their taxes in order to pay less of their money isn't quite grabbing guns and killing each other, but I assume you would still call it "bad."

[QUOTE=sgman91;44602940]It would be more accurate to say that I think atheists like to claim rationality and logical thinking as their preeminent weapons... until it doesn't suit them. They have no problem falling back onto emotion when it's necessary to preserve the society they personally desire. [/QUOTE] Sounds like God of the Gaps, furthermore some logic is better than none, and you're coming from religion, not that you want that debate, since you haven't' mentioning it. And lastly, proving somebody wrong does not make you right. [QUOTE=sgman91;44602940] That's a false dilemma. An obvious third choice is that you lie, cheat, and steal your way to the top while everyone else tries to be "moral." [b]This both preserves society[/b] and raises your own position.[/QUOTE] I'mma need some proof for that, last I checked lying and cheating people did the exact opposite: I mean look at china already, it got that way because of a lot of that.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;44603000]Sounds like God of the Gaps, furthermore some logic is better than none, and you're coming from religion, not that you want that debate, since you haven't' mentioning it. And lastly, proving somebody wrong does not make you right.[/QUOTE] I have no problem admitting that I don't have physical proof for all of my beliefs, but the same doesn't hold for essentially every single atheist I've ever talked to. All I want is the realization that logic doesn't, and can't create a good society alone. Once that truth is established the next question is to decide what the best way is and how to best reach that goal. [QUOTE]I'mma need some proof for that, last I checked lying and cheating people did the exact opposite: I mean look at china already, it got that way because of a lot of that.[/QUOTE] Personal actions are not the same as having every single person make that action. You cheating on taxes won't destroy the entire society and in the end moral choices are individual choices, not societal choices.

[QUOTE=sgman91;44603021]I have no problem admitting that I don't have physical proof for all of my beliefs, but the same doesn't hold for essentially every single atheist I've ever talked to. All I want is the realization that logic doesn't, and can't create a good society alone. Once that truth is established the next question is to decide what the best way is. [/QUOTE] Logic certainly can't all by itself fix everything, but logic, the scientific method, and skeptical thinking are really the only easy way to go anywhere: any other method is prone to deception, false or incorrect conclusions, and basis of all kinds. To say your way (which you are now deliberately keeping vague) is putting stock in that option, of which you even admit you have no evidence of: you are being consciously ignorant. [QUOTE=sgman91;44603021] Personal actions are not the same as having every single person make that action. You cheating on taxes won't destroy the entire society and in the end moral choices are individual choices, not societal choices.[/QUOTE] Implying only you have that option for action: society multiples of people interacting, not a single person making decisions, your decisions do not exist inside a vacuum. And if everyone was skeptical and needed evidence, then your lies would quite quickly be found out as false; in a place with law you would be punished and removed from the populace. I'm not saying a Utopia can exist, I'm just saying that Objective morality is complete bullshit, and that the only morality we can seek is from each other. [editline]Monday[/editline] I get you're Nihilistic and all, and I used to be as such, so I know the mindset. that said I'm probably going to drop out at this point because I know arguing with you isn't going to help either of us.

[QUOTE]Legally, socially, and biologically speaking, it's in your long term interests to be moral to others, we are social animals and as such we have social responsibilities, such as morality. [/QUOTE] Says who? Moral to whom? [QUOTE]And lastly, proving somebody wrong does not make you right.[/QUOTE] But proving false something only requires one instance where it doesn't "Fit"/"checks"/applies" (Jesus don't know the word in English) [QUOTE]I'mma need some proof for that, last I checked lying and cheating people did the exact opposite: I mean look at china already, it got that way because of a lot of that. [/QUOTE] eh? Hegel master and slave? Max Weber state sole owner of violence? Marx super and infra structure? [QUOTE] in a place with law you would be punished and removed from the populace.[/QUOTE] Unless, law is faulty. Which is.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;44604512]He's fucking god, does justice matter? He can do whatever he wants with no consequences. What are we going to do, protest?[/QUOTE] God acts according to His nature. Justice is part of that nature. He can't be unjust in the same way that a rock can't not be a rock. Many people misinterpret the meaning of omnipotance. It doesn't mean the capability to do absolutely anything. It means the capability to accomplish anything He wills. [QUOTE]And if the payment was already taken, do we even have to try to be good? Because if our sins were died for already we can just be as sinful as we want because the price was already paid.[/QUOTE] "For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another." - Galations 5:13 Yes, we have the freedom to do anything, but no one who has been truly redeemed would choose to continually and purposefully spite the God that saved them by abjectly ignoring His desires.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;44607294]So he died for my sins except not really[/QUOTE] I'm not sure how you could possibly get that out of what I said. Jesus's death pays for all the sins of those who accept the redemption: past, present, and future. All of them. That means that future sins are already paid for and cannot damn a person who has been redeemed. If a person honestly believes that God has, out of nothing but His own love for you, saved you from just punishment by taking it upon Himself, then they will not hold nothing but contempt for that same God.

[QUOTE=sgman91;44607332]I'm not sure how you could possibly get that out of what I said. Jesus's death pays for all the sins of those who accept the redemption: past, present, and future. All of them. That means that future sins are already paid for and cannot damn a person who has been redeemed. If a person honestly believes that God has, out of nothing but His own love for you, saved you from just punishment by taking it upon Himself, then they will not hold nothing but contempt for that same God.[/QUOTE] how do the people who are long dead and never knew of jesus post humously accept jesus if they're not already in hell or purgatory?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44607409]how do the people who are long dead and never knew of jesus post humously accept jesus if they're not already in hell or purgatory?[/QUOTE] Honestly, I don't know. The Bible clearly teaches that we are judged based on our level of knowledge. So one who never had heard of Jesus would not be judged based on whether they believed in Jesus. The problem is that every person fails even according to their own conscious. Only God knows the hearts of men and is therefore the only being capable of correct judgement. The important bit is that it's essentially irrelevant to us, today.

I don't think that's irrelevant if you can't say that those that never heard of god went to heaven, then they most certainly went to hell, for just being born at the wrong time and god created those people, put them there, and knew they'd never hear the good word of jesus, but that's fine because they weren't christians? it matters, it's just something I don't think you WANT to matter.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44607432]I don't think that's irrelevant if you can't say that those that never heard of god went to heaven, then they most certainly went to hell, for just being born at the wrong time and god created those people, put them there, and knew they'd never hear the good word of jesus, but that's fine because they weren't christians? it matters, it's just something I don't think you WANT to matter.[/QUOTE] Except I didn't say they all went to hell? I don't know who went where because I don't know their hearts. The Bible clearly talks of people who went to Heaven before the birth of Jesus. "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, [B]15 [/B]in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, [B]16 [/B]on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus." - Romans 2: 14-16

If they didn't go to hell, then that means god gave them a pass for their time, but that kind of begs another question you call it irrelevant, but is it? or is it just offensive to think that there's the potential for us to 1) not need christianity to have gods love as the ancients might have or 2) that god would freely and openly send billions to hell for simply not being around in the right time frame. [editline]21st April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;44607447]Except I didn't say they all went to hell? I don't know who went where because I don't know their hearts. The Bible clearly talks of people who went to Heaven before the birth of Jesus.[/QUOTE] either they went to hell or they went to heaven, in either case this causes a contradiction that is a problem for the various mythologies your religion is based on

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44607452]either they went to hell or they went to heaven, in either case this causes a contradiction that is a problem for the various mythologies your religion is based on[/QUOTE] Those who went to Heaven still go through the salvation of Christ, not by their own works. Also, everyone deserves damnation. The unfair part is that anyone is saved at all. Instead of arguing about why some aren't saved we should argue about why everyone isn't damned.

[QUOTE=sgman91;44607486]Those who went to Heaven still go through the salvation of Christ, not by their own works. Also, everyone deserves damnation. The unfair part is that anyone is saved at all. Instead of arguing about why some aren't saved we should argue about why everyone isn't damned.[/QUOTE] so... how is your god a loving god that cares about anyone then? if he created us all just to be damned(he knew we would be if he's all knowing) then what about your god is accurate? he's clearly not loving, unless you want to change the definition of "loving" to whatever you feel is accurate.

[QUOTE=sgman91;44607332]I'm not sure how you could possibly get that out of what I said. Jesus's death pays for all the sins of those who accept the redemption: past, present, and future. All of them. That means that future sins are already paid for and cannot damn a person who has been redeemed. If a person honestly believes that God has, out of nothing but His own love for you, saved you from just punishment by taking it upon Himself, then they will not hold nothing but contempt for that same God.[/QUOTE] So I can be a murderer, rapist who manipulates people into killing their children and poisoning food and water supplies as long as I honestly repent just before I die? Doesn't seem very fair.

[QUOTE=sgman91;44607427]Honestly, I don't know. The Bible clearly teaches that we are judged based on our level of knowledge. So one who never had heard of Jesus would not be judged based on whether they believed in Jesus. The problem is that every person fails even according to their own conscious. Only God knows the hearts of men and is therefore the only being capable of correct judgement. The important bit is that it's essentially irrelevant to us, today.[/QUOTE] So then what's the difference between the ancient heathens and people who don't believe in jesus today?