Sick Fundy Christians - 'Child sacrifices in London'

You could go far beyond the crusades to see the slaughter christians have caused around the world. Not to say they didn't have their own selfish reasons (instead of god) for all the death and destruction and complete anihiliation of cultures they have caused in both the old and new world but they were christians, nonetheless. And calling it "beating a dead horse" is fairly disrespectful to all those people who were persecuted and died at the hands of the white expansionists of years ago that called themselves "christian"

 

We're not trying to blame modern day christians for what happened in the past, we're just showing that even since the very start of christanity, even with their laws saying not to kill, christians have been killing people - right up to this day, as this news story has shown.

 

We can't change the past, but we can change the present.

But as well as christians causing death and destruction, so have members of other religions, and in modern times, atheist materialists have caused a fair bit of carnage.

 

Can you give me an example? And how do you know they're atheist? Being a materalist is not an exclusivly atheist thing.

 

The Nazis, the Soviets. The British Empire.

But don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that because non religious people have done bad things, it makes it ok for those who call themselves religious. Just pointing out that other factors than religion may be involved.

In no snse whatsoever am I defending this sect in London, or anyone else who is doing this kind of stuff, whatever they believe or don't believe.

 

Hitler was a religous man, the nazi symbol was inspired by a religous one he saw in church. He was trying to create the perfect race of white people, he was calling himself the furah, trying to emulate jesus - if they are not religous themes, then I don't know what are. I hate when people say the nazis were atheists, that's pure bullshit.

As for the soviets and british empire, even though the themes that drove their expansion were not religously insired, the people who took part were religous people, mostly christian - all of which were happy to kill, even tho their religious law forbid it.

Anyway, I'm done with this converstaion,i've said my bit... I'll continue to watch, but i won't be posting anymore.

 

Actually, the swastika is an ancient Hindu symbol which you will find all over India.

I've read a fair bit about Hitler, and I think it's just not true to say he was a religious man at all. Myself, I think it's absurd to say so.

The violence done by the Brits in the empire days was not done with a consciously religious motive, as were the abuses carried out by this african church. They were acting mainly to add to their own material wealth.

 

Argh.. you just had to draw me back in didn't you - last post.

I disagree with you about hitler. I know the symbol is an old hindu one, but as with lots of symbols, they're reused a lot of the time, and i saw a program about a chruch that hitler used to go to, which had the symbol in it - saying that this was his inspration for it. Now i'm sure that's just speculation, but it surely fits.

And even if he was not a religous man himself, he was trying to build up a religion around himself, making himself ou to be some type of jesus figure.

And yes, I can see the diffrence between the this recent incident and the expansion of the british empire (although from what I'm reading now, it looks like it's more of an accident that we got one, rather than by design - but i'll come back to that later when I've been able to read into it more).. but my point was that britan has been (and still is, although today it's far more secular) a christian country, so all the brits who were going over and killing people would have been christian...

What makes this worse, if anything, is the fact that it's not a religious motive - and yet they still did it. I mean it's one thing to kill someone because you think they're a witch or the devil or something - or that god told them to - but to do it otherwise should clearly be stepping over the line?

I think it's unfair to call any of these things "atheist" - there is no such thing as the athiest manefisto. Sure, they might not be a religously inspired things - but they're surely not atheist inspired ones either.

 

I think the capacity for evil is a part of human nature - whether people call themselves blievers in this or that or not.


I don't know that Britain is very christian. Compared to the USA it seems very secular. But also, because some kid gets christened because of social norms doesn't mean they're really a christian - at least, thats my understanding. As you have posted here, christians are supposed to obey the law not to kill, so anyone who is killing can call themselves what they like but it doesn't mean a thing. It is sheer hypocrisy.

Overall, I think we are agreed anyway that the kind of 'religion' that leads to cult abuse etc. is totally negative.

 

By people who weren't Christians.

 

ah, OK!

Then he shouldn't have thrown in all the dominations!

 

here we go, with the lies and bullshit again - maybe you should read your history books a little more.

 

Fundamentalists don't care about people.

 

That being merely YOUR opinion. In the same breath, you mine as well claim, "All African Americans", "All Hispanics", "All Caucasians", etc.

This entire thread is a perfect example of how mass hysteria is ensued. Society finds one group of people who commit a horrendous crime, and crucifies everyone who possess any type of affiliation. The same judgmental attitudes, blatant ignorance, and lack of understanding is what caused the Salem witch trials, hate crimes upon those who practice the Islamic faith, etc.