Too influential?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 817 times

Too influential?

Post #1

Post by nobspeople »

There's no doubt christianty has influenced much of the world through its history - some would say so much so.

For discussion:
Has christianity been TOO influential in history, just enough, or too much? Why
Do you foresee christianity being being just as influential going forward, not as much, or just as much as it is today? Why?
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

2ndpillar2
Sage
Posts: 585
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:47 am
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Too influential?

Post #21

Post by 2ndpillar2 »

nobspeople wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 6:41 am
2ndpillar2 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 12:01 pm
nobspeople wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:45 am
2ndpillar2 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:17 am
Miles wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 8:25 pm
2ndpillar2 wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:50 pm
Miles wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:10 pm .
nobspeople wrote:For discussion:
Has christianity been TOO influential in history, just enough, or too much? Why
As much as Christianity has helped individuals with specific problems, overall I believe it has been a detriment to society and the function of nations as a whole. I believe all societies would be better off without religious dogma and its proponents having a roll in calling the shots. Christianity has continually fostered bigotry and intolerance to the detriment of everyone. And as has been pointed out elsewhere,* religion has promoted tribalism, You :no: vs Me =D>. Makes a virtue out of faith, a wholly bankrupt concept. Teaches helplessness: god will solve your problems, instead of taking a pro-active position. Is, itself, a power seeking organization we can do without. And is based on primitive concepts, archaic rites, and tall tales, rather than reasoned conduct, and actual knowledge.
Do you foresee christianity being being just as influential going forward, not as much, or just as much as it is today? Why?
As of late it's been taking a real nosedive.


Image

* source

.
Well, Christianity is but one of many religions. Your problem-solving societies, the godless Communist, only survive by expropriating the intellectual properties of religious based societies, who apparently are good at solving problems when organized under a free society. Of course, that breaks down when you get Marxist Progressive in charge. Good examples of your godless Marxist societies are North Korea, China, the previous Soviet Union, Venezuala and Cuba. In a wealthy free society, feel free to buy a plane ticket, go there, and see how well things turn out.
Am I reading you correctly, that you're implying a godless society can't exist without adopting communist ideology?


.
A Marxist communist community would be "godless" by definition. Our present U.S. administration is pushing the Marxist/communist community agenda, and while professing to be God fearing, and has a multiple god/pagan historical religion, which is the following false gods, such as Marx, and the false prophet Paul, the beasts of Revelation 17, and the "dragon"/devil, in the form of demon spirits (Revelation 16:13), and nailing the "Word of God" to a cross, resulting in lawlessness in the aspect of the laws of God, but the pushing of the laws of men, in the manner of humanism. I am saying that godless, Marxist governments, ultimately wind up broken. Fortunately, the present U.S. government administration is failing in all aspects of their governess and will apparently be voted out of office quickly.
Sooner the USA is 'god-free' the better IMO. But it will never happen, fully. The USA's education system isn't strong enough and there are those riddled with conspiracy theories that, baring an human extinction, there will, unfortunately, always be some sort of 'god' spreading their falsities and lies to get money and influence.
The "father of lies" would be the serpent/devil/Satan, in which the ungodly look as their own god, in the form of humanism and Christianity, in which each man defines their own good and evil from their own hardened hearts. The "extinction", the ending of the reign of the devil/Satan, comes with the "day of the LORD", which happens after Judah/Jews and Jerusalem are revived (Joel 3:1-2), and the nations/Gentiles come against Jerusalem (Zechariah 14), and are all judged, whereas they are sold into slavery (Joe 3:8), and the devil is locked into the abys. (Revelation 20:1-2)
Sooner the USA is 'god-free' the better IMO. Maybe then, we can get actual responses to questions and issues rather that regurgitated tripe from a book that's considered devine but was, in reality, written by men.
The "faith", beliefs, of an ordinary atheist is that there is no God, based on no evidence, yet they gravitate to their own god, Marx, and his Progressive surrogates. As for your "faith", beliefs, they are apparently, being divulged by a man, without reference from whence they come.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 817 times

Re: Too influential?

Post #22

Post by nobspeople »

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #21]
The "faith", beliefs, of an ordinary atheist is that there is no God, based on no evidence, yet they gravitate to their own god, Marx, and his Progressive surrogates. As for your "faith", beliefs, they are apparently, being divulged by a man, without reference from whence they come.
I'm not an atheist, but your perceived definition seems to be wrong. Might want to revisit that.
In regards to your faith comment - it appears rambling without concrete reasoning. Well done.
Beyond that, what do you think about the thread topic?
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

2ndpillar2
Sage
Posts: 585
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:47 am
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Too influential?

Post #23

Post by 2ndpillar2 »

nobspeople wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 8:50 am [Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #21]
The "faith", beliefs, of an ordinary atheist is that there is no God, based on no evidence, yet they gravitate to their own god, Marx, and his Progressive surrogates. As for your "faith", beliefs, they are apparently, being divulged by a man, without reference from whence they come.
I'm not an atheist, but your perceived definition seems to be wrong. Might want to revisit that.
In regards to your faith comment - it appears rambling without concrete reasoning. Well done.
Beyond that, what do you think about the thread topic?
Feel free to describe what you are? If you describe yourself as an agnostic, well, there you go, you don't know whether there is a God or not, and yet prefer to side with the godless. A position taken without proof of there being a God or not. Kind of sketchy. Inductive and deductive reasoning depends on a base set of facts. If your initial facts are absent, or are falsely assumed, what is the foundation of your "reasoning"? Even an objective computer relies on input. Bad in, means bad out.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 817 times

Re: Too influential?

Post #24

Post by nobspeople »

2ndpillar2 wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 8:59 am
nobspeople wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 8:50 am [Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #21]
The "faith", beliefs, of an ordinary atheist is that there is no God, based on no evidence, yet they gravitate to their own god, Marx, and his Progressive surrogates. As for your "faith", beliefs, they are apparently, being divulged by a man, without reference from whence they come.
I'm not an atheist, but your perceived definition seems to be wrong. Might want to revisit that.
In regards to your faith comment - it appears rambling without concrete reasoning. Well done.
Beyond that, what do you think about the thread topic?
Feel free to describe what you are? If you describe yourself as an agnostic, well, there you go, you don't know whether there is a God or not, and yet prefer to side with the godless. A position taken without proof of there being a God or not. Kind of sketchy. Inductive and deductive reasoning depends on a base set of facts. If your initial facts are absent, or are falsely assumed, what is the foundation of your "reasoning"? Even an objective computer relies on input. Bad in, means bad out.
Open a new thread if you're interested in what we are or aren't; that's not what this thread is about - don't try to hijack it.
If you refuse to address the topic, then we're done here.
Happy posting.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
historia
Guru
Posts: 2039
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: Too influential?

Post #25

Post by historia »

Miles wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 2:02 am
historia wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:51 pm
Worldwide, those who identify as Christian are increasing as a percent of the total population, while those who identify as non-religious are on the decline, and have been steadily since the year 1970.
Just provide a link or two that substantiates your claim and we'll be good.
This post of mine is a few years old, but still has the best links to current and projected demographic numbers.

We good?

2ndpillar2
Sage
Posts: 585
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:47 am
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Too influential?

Post #26

Post by 2ndpillar2 »

nobspeople wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 9:10 am
2ndpillar2 wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 8:59 am
nobspeople wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 8:50 am [Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #21]
The "faith", beliefs, of an ordinary atheist is that there is no God, based on no evidence, yet they gravitate to their own god, Marx, and his Progressive surrogates. As for your "faith", beliefs, they are apparently, being divulged by a man, without reference from whence they come.
I'm not an atheist, but your perceived definition seems to be wrong. Might want to revisit that.
In regards to your faith comment - it appears rambling without concrete reasoning. Well done.
Beyond that, what do you think about the thread topic?
Feel free to describe what you are? If you describe yourself as an agnostic, well, there you go, you don't know whether there is a God or not, and yet prefer to side with the godless. A position taken without proof of there being a God or not. Kind of sketchy. Inductive and deductive reasoning depends on a base set of facts. If your initial facts are absent, or are falsely assumed, what is the foundation of your "reasoning"? Even an objective computer relies on input. Bad in, means bad out.
Open a new thread if you're interested in what we are or aren't; that's not what this thread is about - don't try to hijack it.
If you refuse to address the topic, then we're done here.
Happy posting.
I thought the OP was the influence of the believers. As Atheist, the godless, are believers in godlessness, they have their own faith and influence which is somewhat counter to that of "believers". Not that both sects aren't wrong in their beliefs, but they both have some influence. Whether the influence is positive or negative would be the better discussion. Looking at the Satan Temple in New York, and their leadership, I would think that the godless Progressives and the Satanist have a negative influence on daily life, in at least New York.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 7144
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 1272 times
Been thanked: 1504 times

Re: Too influential?

Post #27

Post by Tcg »

2ndpillar2 wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 12:20 pm
As Atheist [sic], the godless, are believers in godlessness, they have their own faith and influence which is somewhat counter to that of "believers".
No. We simply lack belief in god/gods. It's not complicated and very easy to comprehend. It doesn't take faith to lack belief in god/gods. It does take faith to believe in them or it or whatever is one's opinion about it/them.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

2ndpillar2
Sage
Posts: 585
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:47 am
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Too influential?

Post #28

Post by 2ndpillar2 »

Tcg wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 12:36 pm
2ndpillar2 wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 12:20 pm
As Atheist [sic], the godless, are believers in godlessness, they have their own faith and influence which is somewhat counter to that of "believers".
No. We simply lack belief in god/gods. It's not complicated and very easy to comprehend. It doesn't take faith to lack belief in god/gods. It does take faith to believe in them or it or whatever is one's opinion about it/them.

Tcg
You can define yourself anyway you want, but what you are describing is known as an agnostic. Apparently, an atheist "believes" that there is no God, for there is no way he can know, for he has no evidence that there is not a God. Hiding his real beliefs through verbal gymnastics, he thinks he is safe from an angry God, whom he professes doesn't exist. Instead of describing their belief as a faith, they define it as a disbelief, which is just a belief in other terms. Depending on his actions, he may well be safe from God, but not from godless men. Atheist should be angry at the hypocrisy of "Christians", and then vow to not be as nonsensical and hypocritical, and not to sit in the same boat. Otherwise, when that boat sinks, they share the same fate as of the "Christians".

gnostic

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

atheist
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3353
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 256 times
Been thanked: 926 times

Re: Too influential?

Post #29

Post by Miles »

2ndpillar2 wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 12:20 pm
nobspeople wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 9:10 am
2ndpillar2 wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 8:59 am
nobspeople wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 8:50 am [Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #21]
The "faith", beliefs, of an ordinary atheist is that there is no God, based on no evidence, yet they gravitate to their own god, Marx, and his Progressive surrogates. As for your "faith", beliefs, they are apparently, being divulged by a man, without reference from whence they come.
I'm not an atheist, but your perceived definition seems to be wrong. Might want to revisit that.
In regards to your faith comment - it appears rambling without concrete reasoning. Well done.
Beyond that, what do you think about the thread topic?
Feel free to describe what you are? If you describe yourself as an agnostic, well, there you go, you don't know whether there is a God or not, and yet prefer to side with the godless. A position taken without proof of there being a God or not. Kind of sketchy. Inductive and deductive reasoning depends on a base set of facts. If your initial facts are absent, or are falsely assumed, what is the foundation of your "reasoning"? Even an objective computer relies on input. Bad in, means bad out.
Open a new thread if you're interested in what we are or aren't; that's not what this thread is about - don't try to hijack it.
If you refuse to address the topic, then we're done here.
Happy posting.
I thought the OP was the influence of the believers. As Atheist, the godless, are believers in godlessness, they have their own faith and influence which is somewhat counter to that of "believers".
While some atheists hold that god does not exist, "believers in godlessness" as you put it, most take a far less assured position: they simply lack a belief in god. They don't say he doesn't exist, but that theists have simply failed to prove their assertion that he does. Prove god exists and they will believe.


.

2ndpillar2
Sage
Posts: 585
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:47 am
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Too influential?

Post #30

Post by 2ndpillar2 »

Miles wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 5:18 pm
2ndpillar2 wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 12:20 pm
nobspeople wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 9:10 am
2ndpillar2 wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 8:59 am
nobspeople wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 8:50 am [Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #21]
The "faith", beliefs, of an ordinary atheist is that there is no God, based on no evidence, yet they gravitate to their own god, Marx, and his Progressive surrogates. As for your "faith", beliefs, they are apparently, being divulged by a man, without reference from whence they come.
I'm not an atheist, but your perceived definition seems to be wrong. Might want to revisit that.
In regards to your faith comment - it appears rambling without concrete reasoning. Well done.
Beyond that, what do you think about the thread topic?
Feel free to describe what you are? If you describe yourself as an agnostic, well, there you go, you don't know whether there is a God or not, and yet prefer to side with the godless. A position taken without proof of there being a God or not. Kind of sketchy. Inductive and deductive reasoning depends on a base set of facts. If your initial facts are absent, or are falsely assumed, what is the foundation of your "reasoning"? Even an objective computer relies on input. Bad in, means bad out.
Open a new thread if you're interested in what we are or aren't; that's not what this thread is about - don't try to hijack it.
If you refuse to address the topic, then we're done here.
Happy posting.
I thought the OP was the influence of the believers. As Atheist, the godless, are believers in godlessness, they have their own faith and influence which is somewhat counter to that of "believers".
While some atheists hold that god does not exist, "believers in godlessness" as you put it, most take a far less assured position: they simply lack a belief in god. They don't say he doesn't exist, but that theists have simply failed to prove their assertion that he does. Prove god exists and they will believe.

.
Prove that God does not exist, and maybe the theist will believe. I think that the atheist who take a "less assured position", would come under the heading of agnostic. They don't know if he does or does not exist and have no evidence of either way. As to who or what God is, is another question. The "Christians" have a trinity of gods, taken from Constantine's pagan religious roots. The pagan gods exist in the form of inanimate statues, and in the minds of the pagans. According to Genesis, they are among the sons of God, who came down to mate with the daughters of men, and produced the "men of renown", who after they died, became demon spirits. One of the sons of God was Satan, and Satan, the sun god, is worshipped on the day of the sun with respect to the "Christians", as prescribed by the head of the Roman pagan church, the Roman emperor Constantine per his decree, which he made in the year 321 AD. They have chosen to follow the false prophet Paul and his false gospel of grace/cross, which is the nailing of the law of God to a cross. They apparently don't "believe" God. The atheists are thought of as being hedonist, which is probably better than many "Christians", who will deny they are hedonist, but in fact are, and they pursue manna with a vengeance. The atheist who are hedonist, seem to follow the path of Marx, and do not want to work or pay their college loans, their debts, pay for their own food, or shelter, and live off other people on a monthly stipend, thinking they will enjoy themselves with women and circus. They generally wind up on drugs, with no teeth. The one's that make it, simply sell their souls to Satan, like Epstein, Gates, etc. and live high. The so called "Christians", who are hedonist, generally follow the same path, eventually. As far as influence, big Tech and the elite, who were mostly surrounded by the Progressive liberals throughout their schooling and in Business, would fall in all three groups, with the winners being hedonist in lifestyles. Does Bill Gates really need over 10 bathrooms with 48,000 square feet? Or does Bezos really need a 417-foot superyacht, with a 100 foot tender yacht? I thought these guys were leaders of the "green movement". Does the communist Bernie Sanders, the Marxist leader of the BLM movement, or the Progressive woke President Biden really need 4 homes? Influence isn't a matter of what false belief one holds, for people of different beliefs can walk the same road to hell. The road to hell is paved with hypocrisy, and double mindedness. With enough double mindedness, there is nothing one can't believe.

Post Reply