Does atheism poise a safety risk to Christians?

That is what is so wonderful about the Holocaust Museum. There is a part of the museum where the survivors tell the stories. When I was teaching about the holocaust I would bring in survivors and what was so interesting the kids didn’t even know about it until I taught it. When I went to school we didn’t learn about the holocaust

 

But I did find two unicorns

 

North Korea is not much different than being ruled by a deity. You just happen to be fortunate enough to agree with the "regime".

 

Also, I selected the "Yes" option. But it is no different than the ideology of Christians posing a a threar to Atheists. I'm tired of seeing this contest for victim status and moral "highground". I wish you'd all have sorted out your differences already in the only way that matters.

 

Were you able to provide proof of your claims? Also your claims about conscience do not make sense, as I've already told you about my own perspectives. That is, of course, unless I don't have one.

 

So when you said,

you lied, presumably with the approval of whatever passes for a conscience in your little slice of the universe. Got that about right, haven't I?

 

Do not worry yourself with responding, Renee. Yguy was not even able to answer any of what I said here:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/where-does-morality-come-from.503140/page-18

 

Guess I could hate Charles Manson too. He might have made different choices than he did but it's just not worth the time or the space. I had an ancestor burned at the stake for translating the Word of God from Latin into the common language (Foxes Book of Martyrs- John Rogers) Guess I could hate the Catholic Church for that. You know, it is all in the hands of God. He delivers real justice. God does desire that none will perish. Guess we'll all find out how it works out.

Christians are normal people. They too make mistakes. They, however choose to follow Christ and do not proudly walk in the way of sin. Hanging people for the color of their skin, and persecuting others is not following Christ regardless of a "church affiliation". Muslims, for instance, enslave the "infidels" and murder those that won't convert. That is all according to the will of Mohammed in his teachings.

 

North Korea is ruled by "little Rocket man" who believes there is no need for God because he , an atheist, is a god himself.

 

I do beg to differ. What charity did the Native Tribes give each other when they defeated their enemy tribes in battle?

I have never heard of Atzecs, Apaches, Choctaws or the Sioux setting up reservation systems with food, schools and hospitals after winning a typical battle with their enemies. The standard policies were to kill all the male fighters within a short time, and take what women and children they wanted as captives (slaves).

As you must be so much better informed about history, please tell us of the Native's "Bureau of White Man Affairs," "Office of White Man Affairs," "White Man Housing Grants" or the "American White Man College Fund."

Please hold pagans and other religions to the same standards as Christians throughout history. Thank you.

 

The more you know about history, the more you can grow.

 

Yes, archaeologists have found evidence of cannibalism among the Anasazi Indians and many more ancient Amerindian groups.

I don't recall any Christian group throughout history that had cannibalism as part of their worship services.

 

The World War II-era genocide was put into effect by a 'think-tank' of high-ranking Nazis at a conference they held at Wannsee in 1942. The exterminations were carried out by an special, singular group of the Schutzstaffel called the SS-Totenkopfverbände (SS-TV). Only someone who is pathetically ignorant of the facts of history would blame this on "Christian Europe" -- as you have.

You who defend what Islam actually DOES to "Infidels" -- including all religions, and atheists in the 21st-century, today, NOW, always seek to try to smear everyone else with atrocities by claiming that anyone who is a member of another religion is 'just as bad'.

Instead of chiding others into making "apologies for the whole human race", you should apologize for your broad-brush slander against Christians and your unfortunate ignorance about subjects you obviously know nothing about!

Back on topic -- no, atheists, per se, do not pose a 'danger' to Christians. I have never really thought so. But, Islam? You can read the news about Muslim atrocities against Christians all the time! They are commanded by their religion to do this -- much as those members of the SS-Totenkopfverbände were commanded to kill people in the Nazi death camps!

. "Proceed with the plan! The idiots will just blame it on 'Christian Europe' anyway!"

 

I notice you don't bother to back up any of your "history" with factual links. Why didn't Christian Americans fright so many Amerindian tribes with the same rules of war they fought their Christian British foes over 100 years ago? Was this not a natural response to the savagery so many Native American tribes inflicted upon the settlers? There were massacres on both side, however the traditional brutal warfare of native tribes led to the similar acts of savagery in some cases by the Whites settlers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_massacres

What village did Custer kill everyone in??? Are you referring to the Battle of Washita River?

The Southern Cheyenne encampment on the Washita River comprised a key component in Custer's field strategy – Indian noncombatants. Women, children, the elderly or disabled[55] were targeted for capture to serve as hostages and human shields. Custer's battalions intended to "ride into the camp and secure noncombatant hostages"[56] and "forc[e] the warriors to surrender".[57] Custer demonstrated the value of a strategy that utilized "capture[d] women and children" to "neutralize" the Southern Cheyenne superiority in numbers at the Battle of the Washita.[55]

Author James Donovan describes the 53 women and children seized at the Washita as "captives" or "prisoners." They were used by Custer to ensure the escape of his regiment as Cheyenne forces from nearby villages began "pressing his position".[58] Historian Jerome Greene spelled out their function: "…fifty-three women and children taken captive at the Washita served as assurance against attack from the downriver [Indians] during Custer's extrication of his command from the scene late on November 27.".[59] As Custer advanced with his regiment in a mock assault – mounted women and children hostages riding among his troops – the warriors dispersed, "afraid that shots directed against the column might hit the prisoners".[60]

Larry Sklenar, in his narrative of the Washita battle, describes the role of "hostages" as human shields:

Custer probably could not have pulled off this tactical coup [at the Washita] had he not had in his possession the fifty-some women and children captives. Although not hostages in the narrowest meaning of the word, doubtlessly it occurred to Custer that the family-oriented [Cheyenne] warriors would not attack the Seventh [Cavalry] with the women and children marching in [the middle of his column].[61]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Washita_River

I proclaim your "100% genocide" by Custer to be a stupid lie. Read something other than a comic book about history.
https://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/cultural_diversity/washita_battlefield.html

It has been the policy of uncivilized people to kill the male captives in warfare. Civilized people, like Christians, have had rules of war. Who do you think started the Geneva Convention? The Red Cross?

Give credit where credit is due.

 

Good Christians..........

 

Your facts are correct. Assigning the policy to "Christians" is bogus. This was not ordered by a church official.

But for Christians, Protestant and Catholic, it likely NAs would have been entirely exterminated in the Americas, as they literally were throughout the entire Caribbean, literal total extinction. The first religious leader to order this stopped was the Catholic Pope, who declared that native Americans were humans with souls, not animals, and therefore had to be converted rather than outright slaughtered.

It was secular military policies, not church policies, that called for extermination of Native Americans. Church policies and Christianity were the only hope Native Americans had left.

 

LOL! You were pwned and the best you can come up with is an ad hom attack. Sad.

 

Stalin, Mao and PolPot were atheists. They murdered millions of their own people.

 

Once more Stalin was studying for the priesthood.

 

More of your entertaining, self-constructed 'history', Te...? So, now after your recent "Ireland/England" experience with reality, you wish to plod onward into the Holocaust...?

You may be interested to know the real history of how the Holocaust was planned: The World War II-era genocide was put into effect by a 'think-tank' of high-ranking Nazis at a conference they held at Wannsee, near Berlin, in 1942. The exterminations were carried out by an special, singular group of the Schutzstaffel called the SS-Totenkopfverbände (SS-TV).

If you'd rather not go to the trouble of actually reading anything about a subject before you pontificate about it, you may, in the case of the Holocaust, find a surprisingly well-made, factual movie, "Conspiracy", to be instructive: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266425/ Cheers!

 

Stalin obviously didn't graduate into anything except barbaric Communism.

Just because one may have studied a subject does not mean they embrace it as their life's work.

 

Their hope was that it was a big country and the survivals of the attempts genocides was hard to find and when found they was hard to killed beside for a large percent of the post 1492 history they was useful as allies in the struggle between Europeans.

In other word it was not religions or the kind hearts of Europeans but simple cost/benefit ratio to do a complete genocide.

footnote it was not the church or the churches who decided to limit the colonies expansion to the West but the British empire who did not wish to spend the resources to deal with the natives resulting in one of the main reasons for our declaring independent that for some not very strange reason was not listed.

 

So what? He was an atheist totalitarian dictator.

 

An what was a large percent of the Popes in history but dictators who make and broke European rulers at whim?

Nothing like combining military force with religion leadership now is there?

 

Is there a Pope yet that has murdered millions upon millions? Nah....