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.

[ManonFire63]

Prior to Jesus Christ, all men were going to hell. All had sinned and fallen short. Heaven is oneness with God.

We may be able to breakdown Good and Evil to:

God is Holy and Separate from sin.
I am a man.
Does that make me evil?

Someone like Apostle Paul or Saint Augustine were the Worst of Sinners. It is the acceptance that someone was less than, wrong, evil, that the Holy Ghost can come in and transform someone.

When people, and societies, reject The Good News, they may have been on a slippery slope to greater and greater wickedness. The further that Academia and the media pushes "Non-Christian Values," the easier it is to see.

Does Don Lemon had the right to barge into a Church and disrupt a service? Since the 1960's, Universities have been more known as brothels than places of higher learning. Academia, and places like Harvard, who made an Atheist their Head Chaplin, they are not in a great state right now.

[promethean75]

"Other than God or your doctor, you are the best proprietor of your own self-embetterment."

This is actually false. The doc is good, though. Here lemme explain.

We have two realities x and y. In reality x, joe suffers all manner of shit in life, then dies and goes to heaven. In reality y, joe suffers, but not all manner of shit... only a couple bad things... then dies and goes to heaven.

If self-embetterment has somewhere in its definition 'the avoidance of unecessary suffering' - and we would expect that it should because suffering needlessly isn't better for anything by definition - then reality x did not exist for the betterment of joe when compared to reality y. A life that suffered a little and ended up in heaven would be better than a life that suffered a lot and ended up in heaven.

Unless the outcome explains some qualitative difference between heavens such that the gratuitous suffering in reality x is rewarded by a different, better heaven than the heaven awarded to the joe in reality y, there is no logical reason to let joe live in reality x unless god is a sadist or incompetent.

[Immanuel Can]

Marx said nothing about executing working-class citizens in large fields.

So you don't mind executing middle class and upper class people? And it's fine, so long as it's not "in fields"?

Or do you realize that telling people to murder others is inherently evil?

Because it is, whether you will admit it or not.

Maybe you're only showing why Socialists are inevitably prone to be homicidal. They think it's only their "class enemies," and anything done to a "class enemy" is always excusable.

But Marx wasn't merely a homicidal maniac in relation to some people. He was, in regard to most people. His favourite quotation was from Faust: "Everything that exists deserves to perish." (See him quote it in his 1852 historical text "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.") He was one hateful, nihilistic occultist, actually. His own father called him "my dear devil." (letter from Edgar, March 31, 1854).

You really need to read a bio of the guy. He was exceptionally nasty and evil, probably beyond anything you can imagine.

[promethean75]

All murda is in self-defense, though. We murda to protect ourselves from poverty, hunger, dishonor, withdrawals, any number of things.

[Immanuel Can]

All murda is in self-defense, though.

That's just the excuse. Socialists define everything as "violence," including words, and including not being a Socialist, just like they define all their opposition as "reactionary," or "Fascist." That's how they justify murdering them, and then still think they can be "good people" for having done it.

[Gary Childress]

All murda is in self-defense, though.

That's just the excuse. Socialists define everything as "violence," including words, and including not being a Socialist, just like they define all their opposition as "reactionary," or "Fascist." That's how they justify murdering them, and then still think they can be "good people" for having done it.

All Socialists do not condone murdering other human beings. Most believe in preventing the deprivation and conditions which foster moral corruption and the resulting crimes that come from them. Most believe in preventing those with less means from being exploited and tyrannized (including being murdered by industry) by those with more means. And they do not condone murder of any kind, only self-defense under specific circumstances.

However, if you are intent on bearing false witness against all socialists, then that is between you and God (if there is one). But maybe there's no God and you won't be punished. Or maybe God isn't benevolent and didn't mean it when he allegedly said: "Do not bear false witness against another". Or maybe what you mean to say is that some, but not all, people who describe themselves as "socialist" murder others, just as not all people who define themselves as "Christian" condone the destruction going on in Gaza.

[promethean75]

I thought i might mention this strange thing happening here. Many, if not most, classic era socialists were atheists quite enthusiastic about murdering people if it were toward revolutionary ends (however much they distorted what that means). Dead people don't matter if you'll recall the wisdom of Stalin. So, murderous socialists aren't all that interesting, really. Gulags, desenter executions, obnoxious farm owners that won't shut the f*** up when you come to take their shit so you just shoot the guy... all that's run-of-the-mill revolutionary stuff, mate.

What's way more interesting is the history of murderous religious programs [insert your favorite from genocide to inquisition] committed by the ones who aren't atheist and so shouldn't be murdering muhfuckas.

Don't you find that odd, sirs?