Evil and Christians

[Fairy]

Our fundamental human nature seeks goodness rather than evil is a cornerstone of many philosophical and spiritual traditions. It suggests that our core instincts draw us toward connection, empathy, and positive growth, while destructive behaviors stem from ignorance, fear, or disconnection from that core truth.


Christians commit atrocities because human beings are flawed, and religious ideals can be corrupted by psychological and social factors. Individuals may use religion to justify pre-existing prejudices, misinterpret scripture for personal power, or allow tribalism to override the core tenets of their faith.


Ultimately, scholars and religious leaders often note that the actions of individuals do not define the entirety of a religion, pointing out that both immense humanitarian good and historical atrocities have been carried out in the name of the exact same faith.

Same core principles applies to all the other religions including Islam. Even the atheist is God in the flesh.
Gnosis means "knowledge" or "awareness". The Logos (the Word) is described as divine, eternal, and the creative force of the universe. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Humans don’t know they are God. But through Jesus Christ the God in his conceived human form in this conception, God can be recognised, or remembered. The duality that is the absolute formless spirit and the relative formed flesh can be understood to be identical through self-inquiry, where reconciliation acts as the bridge between the spiritual and the material ultimately closing the apparent gap by aligning the two different ideas to make them compatible, and perfectly consistent.

[Immanuel Can]

Correct! That "organization" is called Christianity.

Except it's not. It has its own name. And even that organization is responsible for only a tiny fraction of the people killed in the various wars, purges and such of the past...some fragment of about 4.3%, which it divides with every other religion on earth, except one...Islam. But even Islam accounts for only another 4.3% in its own right...and climbing slowly.

It's Atheists that have killed over 140 million in the last century. Nobody else is within orders of magnitude of that total. It's the single most fatal belief in human history.

So, since true Christianity is inherently good, only non-Christian behavior can be the origin of evil?

No, we're all still human. Any of us can make a mistake or fall into a sin. But a Christian knows what that means. The Atheist has merely to pretend it does not happen, since Atheism has no conception of sin.

Therefore, Christians are not responsible for evils such as the Crusades, the Inquisitions, etc.

You're naming things that fall to the historical record of a group known as the Roman Catholic Church, and particularly, their hierarchy.

If you find that the RC's followed Jesus Christ in those actions, then you would have a case. But if you realize that Crusades, Inquisitions and such have nothing to do with what Christ taught and did, then you have justification for asking an obvious question: why should we regard what the RC hierarchy did as "Christian"?

It's atheists as an "organization" that have been responsible for all the evil in the world.

No, just for most of the deaths by war and other sorts of violence, like torture, starvation, exposure, or shooting people in the back of the head and rolling them into a ditch, as was done in Germany, in Russia, in Cuba and everywhere else the Atheists have ruled. And that's just an overwhelmingly clear historical fact, because we know it numbers at least 140 million. Nobody has come remotely close to such a total but Atheistic regimes...mostly Socialist.

[MikeNovack]

No, just for most of the deaths by war and other sorts of violence, like torture, starvation, exposure, or shooting people in the back of the head and rolling them into a ditch, as was done in Germany, in Russia, in Cuba and everywhere else the Atheists have ruled. And that's just an overwhelmingly clear historical fact, because we know it numbers at least 140 million. Nobody has come remotely close to such a total but Atheistic regimes...mostly Socialist.

Except "total numbers" a misleading way to compare. The human population in 1800 AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE less than now. So 140 million now equivalent to 14 million then. The casualties of the "Thirty Year's War" (Christians vs Christians) were 4-8 million. That's like 40-80 million now.

[Immanuel Can]

No, just for most of the deaths by war and other sorts of violence, like torture, starvation, exposure, or shooting people in the back of the head and rolling them into a ditch, as was done in Germany, in Russia, in Cuba and everywhere else the Atheists have ruled. And that's just an overwhelmingly clear historical fact, because we know it numbers at least 140 million. Nobody has come remotely close to such a total but Atheistic regimes...mostly Socialist.

Except "total numbers" a misleading way to compare. The human population in 1800 AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE less than now. So 140 million now equivalent to 14 million then. The casualties of the "Thirty Year's War" (Christians vs Christians) were 4-8 million. That's like 40-80 million now.

Oh, so you're going to do it proportionally, not by actual numbers.

On that theory, if one man kills another, and there's nobody else on the island, he's killed the equivalent of half the population: 4.15 billion people. That would indeed be an atrocity.

Good thinking skills there, bud.

The other problem is this: that before all the Atheist killing, the ideologies of Atheism and Communism didn't really exist. You could argue that, up to then, Atheism was a minority taste, perhaps, but no more: and Marxism only really was first articulated in the middle of the 19th Century, as you know.

So the first time they got a crack at the task, they killed vastly more people than all the religions of the world previously, combined, throughout the entirety of human history, had managed to do. That's a pretty powerful ideological launch, don't you think? And do you really think they're done yet? Clearly not. For there are still homicidal Atheist regimes in the world today, and not a few.

[Gary Childress]

No, just for most of the deaths by war and other sorts of violence, like torture, starvation, exposure, or shooting people in the back of the head and rolling them into a ditch, as was done in Germany, in Russia, in Cuba and everywhere else the Atheists have ruled. And that's just an overwhelmingly clear historical fact, because we know it numbers at least 140 million. Nobody has come remotely close to such a total but Atheistic regimes...mostly Socialist.

Except "total numbers" a misleading way to compare. The human population in 1800 AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE less than now. So 140 million now equivalent to 14 million then. The casualties of the "Thirty Year's War" (Christians vs Christians) were 4-8 million. That's like 40-80 million now.

Oh, so you're going to do it proportionally, not by actual numbers.

On that theory, if one man kills another, and there's nobody else on the island, he's killed the equivalent of half the population: 4.15 billion people. That would indeed be an atrocity.

Good thinking skills there, bud.

The other problem is this: that before all the Atheist killing, the ideologies of Atheism and Communism didn't really exist. You could argue that, up to then, Atheism was a minority taste, perhaps, but no more: and Marxism only really was first articulated in the middle of the 19th Century, as you know.

So the first time they got a crack at the task, they killed vastly more people than all the religions of the world previously, combined, throughout the entirety of human history, had managed to do. That's a pretty powerful ideological launch, don't you think? And do you really think they're done yet? Clearly not. For there are still homicidal Atheist regimes in the world today, and not a few.

Is there a difference between an "atheist" and a "true Christian"? For example, could one atrocity be committed by atheists and another by Christians who aren't true Christians? And therefore, it is best to be a "true Christian" to ensure that one does not commit atrocities at all? Or are we humans all just cursed that we'll all commit atrocities somewhere along the line?

[promethean75]

According to IC, christian crusading soldiers aren't real christians, while Cambodian firing squads are real Marxists. How this is so is a mystery because just as Jesus said nothing about galavanting around the world with a sword in the name of god, Marx said nothing about executing working-class citizens in large fields.

[Immanuel Can]

Except "total numbers" a misleading way to compare. The human population in 1800 AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE less than now. So 140 million now equivalent to 14 million then. The casualties of the "Thirty Year's War" (Christians vs Christians) were 4-8 million. That's like 40-80 million now.

Oh, so you're going to do it proportionally, not by actual numbers.

On that theory, if one man kills another, and there's nobody else on the island, he's killed the equivalent of half the population: 4.15 billion people. That would indeed be an atrocity.

Good thinking skills there, bud.

The other problem is this: that before all the Atheist killing, the ideologies of Atheism and Communism didn't really exist. You could argue that, up to then, Atheism was a minority taste, perhaps, but no more: and Marxism only really was first articulated in the middle of the 19th Century, as you know.

So the first time they got a crack at the task, they killed vastly more people than all the religions of the world previously, combined, throughout the entirety of human history, had managed to do. That's a pretty powerful ideological launch, don't you think? And do you really think they're done yet? Clearly not. For there are still homicidal Atheist regimes in the world today, and not a few.

Is there a difference between an "atheist" and a "true Christian"? For example, could one atrocity be committed by atheists and another by Christians who aren't true Christians?

Of course....except that the expression "Christians who aren't true Christians" makes no sense: either they are or are not legitimately Christians, obviously. So the right expression would be "those who are claiming to be Christians, but are not."

It's quite normal for human beings to claim dishonestly to be on the moral high ground while performing wicked acts. In fact, that's a very useful strategy a wicked person can use in order to prevent being called out or opposed while doing wickedness...to do wickedness in the name of righteousness. Just claim to be good. And since consummate goodness is properly associated with Jesus Christ, there is simply no name more handy to be abused.

As Jesus Himself declared, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter." (Mt. 7:21)

[Cammy K]

If I don't worship God, don't go to church, and don't see life as a sacred gift from God, am I "evil?" Am I essentially an agent of Lucifer or else a sympathizer with the ways of Lucifer? Will I only spread evil and curse others if I influence them? And if I am "evil", is there really any reason for me to live that is unselfish? Would the world not be a more "good" place without me in it?

Or.

If I start going to church, reading the Bible, and changing my ways, will I then be acceptable to Christians to live in this world with them?

Or

Should I move somewhere that most people won't be offended by my presence?

You are an applier of individual liberty. You are out for your well-being and, as such, everyone's well-being. Never let people influence you to do things detrimental to your well-being. Other than God or your doctor, you are the best proprietor of your own self-embetterment.

Follow your "Drive" to green pastures.