israel-must-be-destroyed
Israel

World Peace Day – what’s the point of that?

September 21st is the day the United Nations General Assembly decreed shall be set aside as the International day of Peace, or World Peace Day. “Let us all work together to help all human beings achieve dignity and equality; to build a greener planet; and to make sure no one is left behind,” said UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. And somebody important rings a bell, choirs sing anthems, media publish pictures of doves, and bishops and popes light candles. What’s the point, exactly? It’s not as if those hell-bent on war will stop bombing aid convoys, or those determined to impose their idea of peace on others will stop their torture of infidels and genocides of hate. After all, if your god has decreed holy war, who are you to interfere with the divine plan? What exactly do you do to stop those who dispute your apprehension of dignity? What if you demur from some UN-imposed notion of equality? What’s the point of beating swords into ploughshares when the fields are full of landmines?

They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace (Jer 6:14)

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee (Ps 122:6).

If peace is the absence of war and conflict, there will never be a World Peace Day until the Prince of Peace reigns, the law is perfect, and the government is upon his shoulder. There will be no man-made peace until man stops demanding and commanding: world days dedicated to vacuous abstracts and nebulous notions console no-one. Or maybe they console, but they don’t work. We can gather in our communities and meditate on our precepts, but witnessing for peace is a bit hollow while we’re flogging fighter jets to Saudi Arabia and arming the mountains with nuclear missiles. Blessed are the peacemakers? It’s a prophetic vision, quite unworkable when Islamists are just as adept at beheading you with a ploughshare as a sword.

Doesn’t world peace rather depend on a common notion justice? Isn’t common justice contingent on a universal apprehension of righteousness? Where’s that going to come from if not Zion? Who will unite the people if not the Messiah? Should not a World Day of Righteousness precede a World Day of Peace?

And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more (Isa 2:2-4).

Out of Zion shall go forth the law? Well, there’s an immediate problem, for Zionists aren’t much liked by the judges of dignity in the courts of equality. O, they all preach of joyous fig trees and sing of vines of tolerance, but the church of the nations does not teach pacification to the world’s congregation. No, the king of the Jews heralded revolution:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household (Mt 10:34-36).

Pray for peace, by all means. Light a candle, ring a bell, if you will. But don’t beat your swords into ploughshares just yet, for the only safe farmers are those which are guarded day and night by the swords of the legions.

  • Anton

    We’d be a lot better off without the UN, for a start.

    • David

      Totally agree.

      • Anton

        Watch out in coming months and years for SDRs to replace the dollar as the world’s de facto reserve currency. These stand for “Strategic Drawing Rights” and are IMF/World Bank currency, based on a basket of leading currencies and only available to central banks. The Chinese yuan is about to go into the basket, and when Western inflation stoked by all that QE money printing gets out of control once the velocity of money starts to rise, SDRs will emerge as the new reserve currency. As they are not tied to any nation’s economy, they can be printed indefinitely – and given to the UN for crap like climate change projects. The distortion in exchange rates caused thereby is a hidden form of taxation.

    • carl jacobs

      If you limit an examination of the UN to its intended use, the UN has done pretty well. It was intended to prevent major power conflicts, and give the major powers a forum to address conflicts. The problem is that liberal cosmopolitans see the UN as a nascent form of global governance. So they impose on it duties and responsibilities it was never designed to carry.

      For example, Syria. How often have you heard it said the UN has “failed” over Syria. No it hasn’t. The UN has functioned exactly as intended over Syria. If there is a potential of major power conflict, then the UN is designed to do nothing. But there are those who see the UN as a vehicle for imposing, and enforcing “international law”. They want it to perform the function of establishing international justice according to “international law”. That’s simply not politically feasible. This vision of a UN as sovereign above the nations is what causes the problem.

      Once you accept that the UN was never designed to be the world’s policeman, you can see the UN as a useful tool of the major powers.

      • CliveM

        Agreed stick to a clear, narrowly defined function and stop pontificating on issues it can do nothing about.

        Like criticising UK refugee policy as being in sufficiently Merkel like.

      • Anton

        If it is meant as a forum for the major powers, why are all the tinpot places given platforms there?

        • carl jacobs

          The only thing that truly matters in the UN is the UNSC. Everything else is window dressing. When the UN was formed, there was a lot of resistance to the veto. The P4 said (paraphrased) “There will be no UN without the veto. We can do this by ourselves. We are giving you a chance to include yourselves and have a forum. But the power will be vested in the UNSC controlled by the permanent members.” The veto places the permanent members above any concept of international law.

          The UN only needs one reform. “The permanent members can reorganize the UNSC as they see fit with only the approval of the gov’ts of the permanent members.”

  • David

    Aiming for peace or working towards it is a noble activity for “blessed are the peacemakers”, as our Lord said.
    But let’s also remain realistic. Until Christ returns to impose a godly, global governance there will always be those that seek to destroy us, by one means of another. So we need to be well armed in a number of ways. First and foremost we must be well armed spiritually against the very real forces of darkness. Secondly we need each nation to have an economic framework which allows its citizens to be able to satisfy their own, reasonable economic needs; remember extreme poverty usually provokes violence both within and outside the nation state. Last but not least, we must be militarily armed, well able and ready to defend ourselves against direct physical attacks. This is the human condition.

  • The Explorer

    As the placard suggests, peace can be achieved only by war. And since peace after a war can be maintained only by the threat of more war (UN peace keepers, after all, are soldiers from various nations) the whole concept seems rather pointless.

    One might just as well have a World Universal Health Day, or a World Freedom from Drought Day. They’d make just as much sense and be just as effective.

    • CliveM

      War has a very poor record at creating peace. Following the end of the Great War and WW2, millions died as a direct result of the fall out from these wars.

    • The war that will end all wars was fought and won at the cross. There the enemy was defeated, a defeat realised today by those who live under the cross and bear it in their daily lives. These conquer by the blood of the lamb and by the word of his testimony; by (like the lamb) not loving their lives unto death. They follow the lamb wherever he goes…

      In the world itself, their will be wars and rumours of wars. Nation rises against nation… but such things are only the initial birthpangs. The end is not yet. They do however, point to the end. The end when the lamb shall destroy them with the breath of his mouth and the brilliance of his coming; his word and glory shall crush all opposition in a moment of time, in the instant it takes for lightning to flash from east to west.

  • IanCad

    I understand the picture was taken several years ago in Trafalgar Square.

    Could it be – just possibly, that the little horror holding the sign is the teenage Sadiq Khan? Now His Honour Mayor of London?

    Even if it is not, can we expect from him full outrage if such a sign were to again be displayed in our capital city? Given his recent form it would seem wishful thinking.

    “–Israel Must Be Destroyed” Charming! That means Dead! No More! Driven Into The Sea! Killed! In short, genocide.

    I really think Israel needs to knock heads; starting perhaps with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – He whose stated wish is to see Israel disappear.

  • carl jacobs

    A ha!

    … the United Nations General Assembly decreed …

    I’m beginning to see the problem here.

    OK, who gave the UNGA access to a computer?

  • carl jacobs

    To answer the question however. “World Peace Day” is a holiday for the religion of Man’s Perfectability. It’s not really about peace. It’s an assertion of faith in man’s ability to achieve peace through dint of his own effort. “We believe in the immanized eschaton, the perfection of man, and the life of the world to come.”

  • len

    It must be obvious to every thinking person in the world that Islam is the greatest threat to world peace.Islam in its most virulent form spreads death and destruction wherever its unleashed. ..Being a member of Islam itself is no guarantee that it will not turn upon itself and start devouring those within who are not ‘radical enough’.
    There will be no lasting peace on Earth until the Prince of Peace reigns here and defeats all those who have turned this once great Creation into something resembling hell on Earth.

  • preacher

    As the Lord said ” There will be wars & rumours of wars, Nation will rise against Nation, — & suddenly the end will come ” & ” As it was in the days of Noah they will be marrying & giving in marriage — “.
    Make of it what you will but don’t ignore what’s written, all the peace plans ever invented by man will never work & that’s on the best authority anyone can get.
    Light the candles, release the doves, tune up the orchestra & beat the drum, but don’t expect peace & miracles until the prince of peace returns !.

  • Agrigenti

    Justice may proceed from a god. Or it may simply be the set of behaviors that best promotes the common good of humanity.

    If the former, then whichever faith believes in the true god will be the faith that defines justice. But it will have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it is the true faith. No religion has yet managed to do this. If it had, there would only be one religion.

    The plethora of religions out there leaves those of us who believe in no god with the task of judging a myriad of competing claims. They can’t all be right. Perhaps they’re all wrong.

    In the absence of any proof one way or the other, were faced with a choice. Either we believe in an unproven god based solely on our own transient and unsupported feelings, or we say that we just don’t know whether he, or she according to some religions, exists. We’re then left with the sole option of defining the concept of justice for ourselves.

    This is what secular society does, using as its basis our knowledge of the world around us, as theorized, established and verified by scientific enquiry.

    Experience teaches us that peace promotes our well-being and is therefore a legitimate goal to strive for. Peace contributes to the common good, so marking that goal by calling a particular day “World Peace Day” is not devoid of meaning. At least, no more so than dedicating a particular day of the week to the worship of a putative god and calling it “The Sabbath”.

    You may not share the belief system that marks “World Peace Day”. But if you attack its reason for existing, you also attack the religious calendar of your own faith. If you scoff at an atheist who celebrates “World Peace Day”, don’t be surprised to be scoffed at in your turn when you attend church or synagogue on whatever day of the week you believe your god demands to be worshipped.

    • CliveM

      Oh good our first candidate.

      • The Explorer

        Good? Good that he’s back; or good that it’s easy to identify him? I didn’t get a ‘This user is blocked’ identification, so clearly restriction is confined to name, not to the identity behind the name.

        • CliveM

          Ok ‘good’ was a poor choice of words.

          I was a bit bored and got overexcited!

        • carl jacobs

          Now, now. Is this the emergence of Linus Mark VIII? Time will tell.

          • The Explorer

            Mark IX. Never mind time, Clive M has told already.

          • CliveM

            I make no claims to infallibility, but if I had to bet my mortgage………

            His response has added to the evidence.

          • Pubcrawler

            I concur.

          • Let’s play along with him more next time and pretend we don’t know.

          • CliveM

            That’s might be interesting. Wonder if it would also improve his manner.

          • Stroke his ego …. yes, ego …. and it could be amusing. We could swoon at his brilliance.

          • Pubcrawler

            Would we need a welding visor that we might gaze upon it? Or should we bring a torch?

          • CliveM

            Pitchfork perhaps.

          • Pubcrawler

            A bit rustic for my taste, but I suppose it has the advantage of not having to get too close.

          • A torch and a magnifying glass.

          • CliveM

            Yeeees, hmmmm. So your plan is to turn him into an even more unbearable egotist?

          • Yes. Let him preach to the adoring, receptive masses.

          • carl jacobs

            No, it wouldn’t.

          • “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most recent incarnation of Linus is one “Agrigenti”, is a doctrine revealed by reason and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”

            (His Good Graciousness, Mx CliveM, Honorary Patriarch and Matriarch of the Blogosphere)

          • The name offers a clue.

          • carl jacobs

            And yet we must still treat him with justice.

          • Of course.

          • The Explorer

            After Linus, In Perfect Ignorance, SpongeBob SquarePants, Tanaka, Bob: Citizen of the World, Tutanekai, Finderato and Eustace we’ve collectively got pretty good at rapid identification.

          • carl jacobs

            I don’t disagree. But a cop often knows who did it before he can prove it. As soon as I am convinced, I am going to block him. So I just want to be very very sure.

          • Then can we treat him the way Dexter deals with serial killers? Can we, Carl?

          • The Explorer

            Explain.

          • Take on a town in Sicily, Agrigento, the site of the ancient Greek city of Agrigenti(Agrigentum in Latin), where there is a collection of ancient temples to various Greek gods predating Christ.

            Linus likes to flaunt his perceived assets in public. What he sees as his linguistic, geographical and religious prowess serves as the backdrop for his toxic bitterness. He thinks it gives him an air of superiority.

          • The Explorer

            Thank you. He’s been around, our Linus, in all sorts of ways.

      • Agrigenti

        Candidate for what? Best newcomer of the month? Why, thank you! All compliments are gratefully received and will never be argued with.

    • carl jacobs

      the common good of humanity

      Note how quickly the atheist must appeal to moral objectivity in order to make his argument. The internal contradiction is striking.

      • Agrigenti

        “Common good” is a term defined by mutual agreement based on experience and reasoned analysis. Every generation has its commonly agreed definition of what the common good entails. One only has to look at how Christian attitudes have evolved on issues like slavery and the rights of women to understand that.

        Indeed the only absolutes I’m aware of are physical. For example, if you heat water at an atmospheric pressure equal to that found at sea level on this planet, it will boil at 100 degrees Celsius. Or if you drop on object off a mile-high cliff, it will reach terminal velocity when the sum of the drag force and the buoyancy is equal to the downward force of gravity acting on the object.

        I’ve never come across a moral absolute before. Thou shalt not kill? How many people will die on Death Row in American prisons this year? Thou shalt not lie? How about if telling a lie saves somebody’s life, whereas telling the truth kills them? Thou shalt have no other God but me? What if that injunction was issued by men posing as a false god?

        In order to have moral absolutes, you need a god to lay them down.

        Where is he then? Care to produce him for my inspection?

        • carl jacobs

          So what you mean then is “some arbitrary notion of good chosen by some subgroup with the power to impose it.” Why didn’t you just say so to begin with?

          • Agrigenti

            “An arbitrary notion of good” is as good a definition of Christianity as I can think of.

            The problem is that Christians as a subgroup try to foist their arbitrary set of beliefs on us by appealing to the power of a god, who they say has the power to outvote any human consensus, and to whom we must therefore listen and defer.

            The problem is that, listen as we might, all we can hear are human voices telling us what they believe. God, if he exists, is completely silent.

            That being the case, how can he persuade us that we must believe in his idea of the common good? The only voices I hear talking about the common good belong to men and women. So it is to men and women we must turn for a consensus on how that common good should be defined.

            If god would take it upon himself to appear in glory and rattle off a rousing speech about how the bible is his word and must be taken literally on pain of eternal damnation, who could fail to be persuaded by him? We might not like it. But we’d have to defer to god anyway because who can rebel against omnipotence? The very idea is ludicrous. If there is a Satan and he’s rebelling against a god he knows to be all-powerful then he’s clearly off his head and therefore can’t be held responsible for his own actions.

            So where is god then? I’m looking out of the window right now and I can’t see any blazing chariot descending from the heavens. All I can hear are the voices of men claiming to speak for god, but nothing from him confirming that they’re telling the truth.

            That being the case, all I can do is listen to the consensus of human voices and take my cue from them. That consensus is remarkably consistent over time as you’d expect from a stable species living in largely stable environment, but it nevertheless it does evolve in line with the technological advancement of our societies. If god disagrees with that consensus, let him make his feelings known.

            We’re waiting god. Go on! Speak up! Can’t hear a word you’re saying. Not a sound, not a murmer, not even the faintest whimper of a reponse. All those Christians shouting about how they know what you think better than you do yourself are drowning you out!

        • Albert

          Thou shalt not kill? How many people will die on Death Row in American prisons this year?

          Properly understood the command is “thou shalt do no murder.”

          I’ve never come across a moral absolute before…In order to have moral absolutes, you need a god to lay them down.

          What about this one: It is always wrong to torture a small child purely for fun.

          I take it an atheist cannot agree that that is a moral absolute.

          • carl jacobs

            I take it an atheist cannot agree that that is a moral absolute

            An atheist can never recognize a moral absolute because he denies the existence of any authority capable of establishing a universal truth. He is acutely aware of his finite limited nature. And yet he still insists on making moral arguments as if they have some foundation other than arbitrary whim. That’s why he will use a phrase like “common good”. It let’s him pretend to appeal to something more substantial than “stuff I happen to think is good”. If he ever admitted to himself what he was really doing, he would end up right there with Nietzsche.

          • Albert

            If he ever admitted to himself what he was really doing, he would end up right there with Nietzsche

            You mean, they’ll end up going mad?

          • carl jacobs

            Well, I was referring to morality being nothing but the arbitrary application of power, but madness works as well.

          • Albert

            In all seriousness, I think Nietzsche really tried to live as an atheist, and that’s how he ended up. We simply cannot live without hope, as atheism requires. Or as Aquinas puts it:

            No man can live without joy. That is why one deprived of spiritual joy goes over to carnal pleasures.

            Welcome to the modern world.

          • The Explorer

            “If you stare for long enough into the abyss, the abyss will stare into you.” (Zarathustra). Result: you end up playing the piano with your elbows.

          • Linus believes in moral absolutes but needs to deny there is a supernatural source. That way he gets to choose what he wants.

          • Albert

            It’s a good job there are friendly people about, helpfully to point out the incoherence of that position.

          • Agrigenti

            In a universe created by a god, it might well be perfectly moral to torture a small child purely for fun. It depends on the god’s arbitrary idea of morality. If he decided to make child torture a moral act and selflessness the worst sin you could commit, how could you argue? Omnipotence is omnipotence, after all.

            In a godless universe however, morality is just convenient shorthand for like and dislike. As social animals who give birth to immature young and care for them until they become independent and able to care for themselves, of course we don’t like the idea of our offspring being tortured for no good reason. What we see as immorality is really just a strong instinctive dislike.

            Other animals see things differently. I have a distinct memory from childhood of a cat pouncing on a small kitten and dragging it off to an inaccessible spot under a heavy piece of furniture to toy with until the poor thing expired several minutes later. It was a horrible thing for a human to witness and caused my siblings and me considerable distress. The way our species has evolved means we instinctively feel compelled to care for and protect babies and infants, even when they’re not our own. But in the case of a solitary cat, another cat, even a kitten, merely represents competition, and competitors must be eliminated.

            I didn’t like seeing a kitten tortured to death because I’m not a cat. I’m a human and my reactions have been programmed by the millions of years of evolution that have made us the social animals we are. I can only react as a human. And a cat can only react as a cat. Does this mean the cat is objectively immoral? No, it just means that I didn’t like what the cat did.

            We call baby torture immoral, but what we really mean by that is that we don’t like it because it conflicts with instinctive behaviors bred into us over aeons of evolution. Had we evolved as solitary animals with similar social structures to cats, baby torture might well be our favorite pastime. But we didn’t. So it isn’t.

          • Albert

            In a universe created by a god, it might well be perfectly moral to torture a small child purely for fun. It depends on the god’s arbitrary idea of morality. If he decided to make child torture a moral act and selflessness the worst sin you could commit, how could you argue? Omnipotence is omnipotence, after all.

            This is premised on the rather assumption that the theist thinks God’s commands are good because he is omnipotent. That may have been try for Euthyphro, but Euthyphro was not a classical theist.

            In a godless universe however, morality is just convenient shorthand for like and dislike.

            Which is of course, what it was on the “arbitrary divine command theory” you were proposing. The major difference being that you get to make the commands yourself rather than some kind of deity.

            Now having said that, I’m surprised you think that is the only possibility for the atheist – especially as it isn’t a very good one. It means the moral proposition:

            It is always wrong to torture small children purely for fun.

            Is the same kind of proposition as

            I don’t like jazz.

            But that’s obviously false – indeed offensively false.

            As social animals who give birth to immature young and care for them until they become independent and able to care for themselves, of course we don’t like the idea of our offspring being tortured for no good reason. What we see as immorality is really just a strong instinctive dislike.

            And here you seem to be sort of sneaking in a little natural law theory. How ironic. However, as it stands, it remains simply an instinct. So if someone has an instinct to the contrary (or to do something else that is wrong), it is unclear, on the system you call atheist, on what moral grounds they would be wrong to follow through on their instinct.

            We call baby torture immoral, but what we really mean by that is that we don’t like it because it conflicts with instinctive behaviors bred into us over aeons of evolution.

            This is difficult, in the light of your kitten comparison. For the reason the cat kills the kitten, is because, for evolutionary reasons, wasting energy on the “defective” offspring is inefficient from the point of view of natural selection. But what’s true for the kitten would presumably be true for us. Thus if you appeal to evolution for your morality, you are in a contradiction. Admittedly, this is now a little distance from the torture example, but I think it has sufficient problems to show that our morality does not in fact rest purely on evolution. I think there is a confusion here between the epistemic and the metaphysical elements of morality, TBH.

        • “I’ve never come across a moral absolute before…In order to have moral absolutes, you need a god to lay them down.”

          All we have to demonstrate is that there is a common set of human values that have universal acceptance and transcend time and cultures. God doesn’t have to lay down the law. All He has to do is plant His truth in the heart of every man and make it accessible to him through a conscience and the use of his natural faculties.

          • Agrigenti

            Common values result from the interaction of any species with its environment. Humans are social animals and our values have developed as a response to living in society. The fact that we all share those values merely confirms that we all belong to the same species. It says nothing about the existence of a god.

            For example, just about every dog, be it a great dane or a chihuahua, will object most strenuously if another dog tries to steal its food. As a carnivorous pack animal where each individual contributes towards the well-being of the whole, dogs have developed values in response to the environment they live in. They frown upon theft and will fight for what they believe to be theirs, although their relative position in the pack hierarchy will affect the zealousness with which they protect their “property”. A subservient dog always gives way to a more dominant dog. Respect for the hierarchy is also a dog value.

            So does this prove that dogs have a god? If so, every species must have one, because every species is adapted to its environment and behaves in specific ways in response to it that are analogous to human values.

            So if there are thousands of gods, why are you a Christian and not a believer in something like Japanese Shinto with a god for just about every species, object and geographical feature?

          • That isn’t an explanation for the existence of moral knowledge across time and different cultures. Perhaps it’s the actual existence of certain core values and morals that make it possible for man to live together in human societies. Where does this sense of moral obligation come from? How can such moral awareness occur in a Godless universe?

            It may be true that creatures who behave altruistically will have some survival advantage over groups that lack such a trait. However, moral beliefs are not required to produce such behaviour. If a God exists, He would bring about conscious beings with moral awareness since his intended purpose for humans includes making it possible for them freely to choose good over evil and to know Him. We could suppose that the evolutionary process has been guided by a God who has as one of his goals the creation of moral human creatures. Such a God would ensure that humans have moral value beliefs.

            From a theistic perspective, to think that God and science provide competing explanations fails to grasp the relationship between God and the natural world. God is not one more cause within that natural world. If God exists at all, God is not an entity within the natural world, but the creator of that natural world, with all of its causal processes. If God exists, God is the reason why there is a natural world and the reason for the existence of its causal processes. In principle, therefore, your “explanation” does not preclude a theistic explanation. A God who is responsible for the laws of nature and the conditions that shape the evolutionary process, could certainly ensure that the process achieved certain ends.

          • Agrigenti

            As far as I’m aware there’s no proof that a god or many gods do not exist. But neither is there any proof they do. There’s also no proof that fairies and elves do not exist. So if you’re going to decide that there really is a god, why not also decide that there are fairies and elves at the bottom of your garden? Why limit the operation of your imagination to the conjuring of a god into existence?

            For me the default position must be to treat unconfirmed stories about gods (and fairies, and elves, and leprechauns, and extraterrestrials) as absolutely irrelevant to my existence until convincing proof of their existence becomes available. So far I have seen none. All I’ve seen is a bunch of holy books and a bunch of people who believe in the mutually exclusive stories they tell, but can offer no convincing proof of why any of them should be true, or why their story should be better than all the others.

            Physical explanations for the existence of a consistent human morality are just as plausible as stories about gods. Indeed they’re more plausible because they don’t rely on magic and miracles to make them possible.

            Archaeological findings show us that humans have remained consistent in our physical form for many thousands of years. So why would the values that arise from our interaction with an environment that has also remained essentially stable change in any major way?

            If our form or characteristics were to change, for example if we evolved an ability to reproduce with any other human being regardless of gender (which may soon become possible via technological intervention) then our morality would evolve and change along with our altered circumstances. But as long as we stay as we are, why would our morality change? If morality is merely a result of the evolutionary adaptation of form to environment, it will remain stable until either our form or our environment change sufficiently to make it evolve.

            The consistency of human morality therefore in no way provides evidence for the existence of a god. It doesn’t provide any evidence to prove that a god doesn’t exist. But if your faith is based on a statement like “OK so there’s no proof for god, but he might exist” then you also have to admit that he might not.

        • Anton

          He’ll produce you for his inspection…

          Thou shalt not kill is misleading. It’s “Thou shalt not commit murder” in the Hebrew. Given that there was plenty of capital punishment in King James’ time it is clear that “Thou shalt not kill” was understood to mean murder at the time – but not today. That was a great translation for its day but English usage and custom have changed. Don’t you think the prohibition of murder is an absolute?

          • Only people living in intellectual ivory towers have no absolutes. A man experiencing evil against himself is clear that this evil is absolutely wrong.

          • Agrigenti

            If those who had plotted to murder Hitler had succeeded then WWII might have been shortened by more than a year and tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives saved.

            If Osama Ben Laden hadn’t been murdered by US special forces, how many more major terrorist strikes would he have masterminded and how many would now be dead?

            Charlotte Corday murdered Marat in order to “save a hundred thousand lives”. The slaughter of the Girondins continued after her trial and execution, but she’s widely regarded as a martyr who at least tried to bring the Terror to an end. Had she not acted to eliminate Marat, the chief architect of the Terror and the most zealous of all the Revolutionaries in condemning his opponents to death, how many more would have died?

            Murder may sometimes be the lesser of two evils and therefore not an immoral choice in a given set of circumstances.

            I mean, if you were transported back in time to a point 8 months or so before the birth of Fred West to his mother’s home with an abortifacient in your pocket, would you not slip it into her cup of tea when she wasn’t looking? You may believe that abortion is murder. But if you could save all of West’s victims by committing that one act, would the idea not at least cross your mind?

          • If the unjust torture and slaughter of one innocent man could save the lives of millions would it be moral?

            Would you be prepared to be that person?

          • Agrigenti

            How could the unjust torture and slaughter of one innocent man save the lives of millions?

            Perhaps that’s a question you should ask your god. Your religion claims that this is what happened to his son, although it wasn’t lives he saved, but rather something that Christians claim we possess without being able to prove that it actually exists: a soul, whatever that may be.

            So how will God answer? A voice in your head? Will he write it across the sky? Or will it come in the form of images on a grilled cheese sandwich? Perhaps the ideas that flit across your consciousness are the voice of god. If so, doesn’t that make you no more than a ventriloquist’s dummy?

          • Anton

            I do understand the notion of hypothetical questions but those that involve a violation of the laws of physics are too hypothetical for me to get my head round; sorry. I’m a physicist. Acts of war aren’t murder, and I’m happy with the death penalty for what Osama bin Laden did even without the due process of a court. The Hitler question is a greyer area and I’ll ponder it; thank you.

            By the way the greatest film ever made, Abel Gance’s Napoleon, is out in a few weeks on DVD with the correct soundtrack and all recovered parts included. I mention this because it includes Marat’s stabbing.

        • ‘Every generation has its commonly agreed definition of what the common good entails’

          But that’s just it, no generation can agree on what the common good entails, hence civil and international unrest and war. This way is the way of despair and madness.

          • Agrigenti

            If there were no general agreement on how society should work, it wouldn’t work. But it does work. Mail is delivered. Taxes are paid. Electricity is generated and supplied. Hospitals care for the sick. We live in a society that works. Ergo, there must agreement.

            The problem is that when you disagree with the overall consensus that makes society function, it becomes necessary for you to claim that society isn’t functioning. So you paint a picture of chaos and decline in order to persuade people that only your vision can save it.

            This is what Christianity does. Every generation claims that society is falling apart and only its solutions will stick it back together again. And yet here we are. Society hasn’t fallen apart. Somehow everything still works. And it will continue to work when future generations of Christians are claiming that it’s all falling apart and only they can save us…

            I think your problem is that you’ve fallen under the spell of your own propaganda. If you really believe that society is collapsing, you’ve succumbed to the blandishments of the Christian spin doctors who want us all to believe that everything’s going to pot so that we’ll turn to them for salvation. But they’ve been predicting doom and gloom and imminent apocalypse for 2000 years, and here we still are. So don’t lose any sleep over it, will you?

          • Well, if this is your vision of a society working you either live in a privileged bubble or you’re expectations are very low. Looked at globally the situation is even worse.

          • Agrigenti

            We’ve never been so healthy or lived so long. We’ve never enjoyed such a high material standard of living. We’ve never been so close to overcoming so many physical limitations. And we’ve never amassed a greater amount of knowledge or understood so much about the world around us and the universe in general.

            It seems to me that we’re doing just fine. There are still disagreements and injustices in the world. There is still a lot of room for improvement. But I’d much rather be alive today than at any time in the past. If only for the great dental care. A biblical three score and ten years of chronic toothache with recourse to magic chants or sucking on cloves as the only hope of a cure can’t have been much of an existence.

          • I agree our quality of life is much improved. This doesn’t necessarily mean the sum of human happiness has increased and it certainly doesn’t mean that society has made significant progress in terms of justice and peace. In fact, as far as the UK is concerned I am sure societal happiness and integration is on the slide. The breakdown of the family unit, dysfunctional children due to this, indiscipline, the increase of human selfishness under the guise of self determination and self assertiveness, the proliferation of lying, the lack of a cohesive morality, human greed, etc all are all destructive. All find their root in turning away from the true God

          • Agrigenti

            I’d like to see some data for these things you seen so sure about. Do people really lie more than they did in the past? Seems to me that you’ll have a hard time proving that.

            It also seems to me that we have indeed made significant strides in providing justice and peace for all. Past wrongs have been righted. For example the women who used to be debarred from many jobs solely on the basis of their gender now have full equality. They have been accord control over their own reproductive destiny and are no longer treated as mere chattels of their husbands. Homosexuals who in the past couldn’t marry their life partners or adopt children and might even have been imprisoned for having sex are now allowed to live their lives unmolested. Rape and abuse victims are now taken seriously. Indeed on just about every front, more justice is accorded to more people than ever before.

            In terms of what you refer to as the breakdown of the family unit, it seems to me more like the evolution of the family unit from the nuclear mom-and-dad couple with 2.5 children into something far more flexible and accommodating of different kinds of relationships and expectations. The nuclear family was in itself a break with the tradition of extended families and was made the norm by urbanization and the needs of the industrial economy. In a post-industrial society new models will become normal.

            The lens of your religion is giving you a distorted view of how society is developing. Because it isn’t going the way your faith tells you it should, it must be bad. As far as I can see however, we’re definitely going in the right direction. There is more justice for more people and greater tolerance of difference and diversity, which make for a society in which all can participate equally. We’re certainly no less happy now than we were in an era when unhappiness was swept under the rug and never mentioned in public. A divorced woman may be unhappy and lonely, but no more so than a downtrodden and beaten wife. And at least she has the possibility of improving her lot in life. What can a punching bag do except await the next attack in dread, and hope that her husband will die or be incapacitated before he can launch it? You call that happiness? I call it mortal fear, besides which the unhappiness of dissatisfaction with one’s love life pales into insignificance.

            By all measures we are better off now than we’ve ever been. I think you’ll find few who really want to turn the clock back to an era of domestic violence, concealed abuse and short lives associated with untreated disease and widespread deprivation and poverty. Go and live in an episode of “Call The Midwife” and see how you get on. You’ll be clamoring for the Doctor to take you back to 2016 in his Tardis within 5 minutes.

      • CliveM

        Do you still doubt?

        • carl jacobs

          It’s not so much doubting, Clive, as getting indisputable proof on record.

          • CliveM

            Deleted

          • CliveM

            “Where is he then? Care to produce him for my inspection?”

            Classic Linus.

          • The Explorer

            He normally takes a bit more time before going for the jugular, but since he knows we know who he is he probably isn’t bothering with the preliminaries. At some stage he will start insulting Carl, and that will dispel Carl’s doubts.

          • CliveM

            Whenever he restarts there are 3 or 4 key indicators I look for. They are all there.

          • ” … an unproven god based solely on our own transient and unsupported feelings … “

            Linus has never been able to rise above “feelings” and has always failed to grasp the fact that belief in a Creator God is based on reason, not emotion.

    • Albert

      No religion has yet managed to do this. If it had, there would only be one religion.

      Now there’s a non-sequitur.

      Experience teaches us that peace promotes our well-being and is therefore a legitimate goal to strive for. Peace contributes to the common good

      There are plenty of atheists who would disagree. Marx for example, would see peace as a way of preventing the common good. Nietzsche would ask us why we should care about the common good, if it departs from our own interest.

      What answer would an atheist give to these thinkers and what would be the basis of his answer?

    • ‘But it will have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it is the true faith’

      This Christ has done..

      ‘No religion has yet managed to do this. If it had, there would only be one religion.’

      You place too much trust in the mind of man to acknowledge what is reasonable. If the human heart does not like the message no amount of proof will persuade it.

      • Agrigenti

        What has Christ done? Did you see him do it? Or did you just read about it in a book? Who wrote that book? Did they tell the truth? Or did they exaggerate and transform? Or make everything up?

        I don’t know the answers to those questions, and when I don’t know, I admit it. You don’t know the answers either, but you want to believe you do, therefore you decide how the questions should be answered by making arbitrary decisions and calling the belief system that results from them “faith”.

        I prefer my state of ignorance to your pre-determined faith. At least one day I may find the truth, whereas your ersatz and self-concocted version of it prevents any true acquisition of knowledge. Anything that doesn’t agree with the script you’ve written in your head will be rejected as false.

        To me that seems like the absolute antithesis of truth. It seems like willful self-deception.

        • But you see, I do find Christ compelling. I don’t need to persuade myself, I find him compelling. I find your objections don’t amount to a hill of beans. They’ve been asked before, and answered.

          I would argue that Christ is so compelling that your ‘ignorance’ is wilful. It is not that you cannot be convinced but that you do not want to be convinced. We reject Christ not because we do not see his light but because we prefer the darkness.

          • Agrigenti

            My non-belief in a god is no more willful than your belief. Indeed I would say it’s significantly less willful because it could change if convincing evidence supporting the existence of a god became available. The fact that no such evidence has ever been shown to me means I have no reason to suppose that god exists, just as I have no reason to suppose that fairies, elves and leprechauns exist.

            What I find particularly interesting about your attitude is your absolute conviction that god exists, yet your complete lack of any kind of justification for that belief. It’s a significant claim that needs to be supported if you want others to be convinced by it. And yet you appear to think that all you need to do is announce god’s existence to the world and everyone will be obliged to believe you merely because you say it.

            To me this smacks of something not quite right. Why should your pronouncements be believed solely on the strength of your opinion with no supporting evidence? Who do you take yourself for? God himself?

            Give me some concrete reason to believe in god. If it stands up to scrutiny, how could I not be convinced by it? But please, spare me the denunciation of my character as willfully ignorant and determined to deny what you say is real because I won’t immediately cave before your self-proclaimed ownership of a truth you make no attempt to justify or explain. That’s plain demagoguery, which when accompanied by attacks on the character and intellectual honesty of those who won’t acquiesce to your belief, becomes something quite sinister and worrying.

          • I’ve not been presenting the evidence for my belief. I assume you have already examined the evidence and decided you find it wanting. If not, I recommend you read the gospels. Read them asking God, if he exists, to reveal himself to you. But you must read and enquire with the humility of a genuine seeker. God does not reveal himself to the arrogant and proud but the humble.

          • Agrigenti

            I have read the gospels. And I saw no sign of any god in them. Telling me that it must be my fault is like telling an emperor that you’ve woven him a new suit out of thread that only the pure of heart can see. It’s a fraudster’s trick, which can only work if your target is scared of being judged by others and will tell any lie to stop that from happening.

            If you have to use that kind of dishonest and manipulative trick to get people to believe, or at least say they believe, how credible do you think that makes you?

            I smell a manipulator here. It’s not the first time I’ve run into that kind of character type when speaking to Christians. Faith seems to attract manipulators. I wonder why.

          • I have no further evidence than that of the gospels. If those do not convince nothing will. And yes, it is not a lack of sufficient evidence for faith but moral considerations that blind you. It’s not the head but the heart that is the problem.

          • Agrigenti

            You haven’t even offered any evidence for faith! You’ve just claimed there is evidence and that it’s sufficient, and that if I reject your claim, there must be something wrong with me.

            What do you recommend to “unblock” my heart, then? A laying on of hands and a few rousing choruses of “Kumbayah”?

            If this is the level of discussion about Christianity here, I’ve clearly come to the wrong place.

          • Now you’re being silly. I did offer evidence. The evidence is the Jesus of the gospels that you have already dismissed. There is no other evidence. Sure, there is apologetic argument and debate but these are often no more than intellectual jousting and posturing.

            I’m not interested in mind games. Nor am I interested in my claims. The issues are between you and your Maker. If you are really as stubbornly opposed as you appear to be then perhaps God has already given up on you. I hope not.

    • writhledshrimp

      I rather like Linus.

  • The Explorer

    “Till the war drum throbbed no longer
    And the battle-flags were furled.
    In the Parliament of Men
    The federation of the world.”

    Tennyson. ‘Locksley Hall’

    Social evolutionism believed that sort of stuff quite literally back then. We’ve got the UN part of the vision, but – so far – not much else. Utopians find it harder to believe the dream now, courtesy of two world wars and Auschwitz, than they did then. Christians didn’t believe it then, any more than they do now. Interestingly, in ‘Locksley Hall Revisited’ Tennyson himself had come to disbelieve in the vision: and that without benefit of the Twentieth Century.

  • PessimisticPurple

    Well, since we’re quote mining, how about Romans 9:6?

    • TropicalAnglican

      A poster on another blog put up this quote (apologies if everyone else has already seen it) that went something like this:
      “If Israel and the Palestinians laid down their arms today, there would be peace in the Middle East tomorrow. If only Israel laid down its arms, there would be no Israel after tomorrow.”

      • Albert

        And it’s not true that there would be peace in the Middle East if Israel and the Palestinians laid down their arms. There are plenty of other arguments between Muslims going on.

        • Anton

          And have been doing since within living memory of Muhammad (ie, Sunni vs Shia).

  • Jon Sorensen

    “there will never be a World Peace Day until the Prince of Peace reigns”
    Nope… There will never be a World Peace Day until religious with their silly violent end time beliefs disappear.

    • The Explorer

      How do you know there will be peace if religions disappear?

      • Jon Sorensen

        No, but there there will be no peace with religions.

        • The Explorer

          Agreed. And no peace without them?

          • Jon Sorensen

            At least a chance without religions

          • The Explorer

            Faith, in other words.

          • Jon Sorensen

            No… opportunity.

          • The Explorer

            No opportunity is right. Secular elites are in love with Islam, and will perpetuate it.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “Secular elites are in love with Islam”
            Nonsense. Give some examples maybe?

          • The Explorer

            Sweden, Germany, UK, Holland, USA…

          • Jon Sorensen

            Sweden, Germany, UK, Holland?? WUT? in love with Islam?? Really?

          • The Explorer

            Why was Geert Wilders prosecuted in Holland, and denied entry to the UK?

          • Jon Sorensen

            Geert Wilders nor secular people who don’t like his views don’t seem to be in love with Islam. Just attend a humanist or atheist meet up and check this out for yourself.

          • The Explorer

            If the Swedish elites aren’t in love with Islam, why did they import so many Muslims?

          • Dreadnaught

            If they aren’t having a love affair with Islam, they’ve been very foolish

            Got it in ONE Mr E.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Swedes have also “imported” Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists. They probably don’t want to discriminate based on religion.

          • The Explorer

            It wasn’t Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists in the Stockholm riots. There’s also the issue of numbers. Malmo is on track to become the first Muslim-majority city. You won’t find a Swedish city where Hindus or Christians are set to become the majority. As for importing Jews, Sweden is exporting them. The numbers in Malmo have dropped 50% already and are set to drop further. In due course, that’ll be true of Sweden as a whole.

            I predict a future war between Europe’s people and the elites who have misled them, followed by a war to regain territory as happened with Spain’s war of expulsion against the Moors.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Who are these elites you are talking about that are in love with Islam? Give us some examples of your conspiracy theory.

          • The Explorer

            Well, Anders Brevik waged war on the Norwegian Labour Party because he saw it as the main source for encouraging Muslims into Norway. Was he wrong? I don’t mean in his methods, which only terrorists would condone, I mean in his analysis?

            But before we go any further, conspiracy theory generally suggests inaccuracy. Is it true that a million immigrants, overwhelmingly Muslim, were invited into Germany? Is it true the Malmo is on track to become the first Muslim-majority city?

            Answer me those three questions, and I’ll discuss further.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Anders Brevik was not elite.

            You don’t answer my single question but demand me to answer your three questions. LOL, Fail.

          • The Explorer

            Anders Brevik was not elite. He was waging war on the Labour Party, who were.

            Did a million migrants enter Germany? Yes, or no?

            Is Malmo on track to become the first Muslim-majority Swedish city? Yes or no?

          • Albert

            Culpably foolish. It’s not religion that causes violence, it’s human beings. Nietzsche thought you needed to get rid of Christianity because it made people too passive. Marx thought you needed to get rid of religion because religion prevents violent revolution. They were of course, quite right, as the 20th Century more than demonstrated. Thus, if you are going to make foolishly unfalsifiable claims as this one, why can’t I just reply that the evidence suggests we would have more chance without atheists? After all, although you guys are a tiny minority of the whole history of humanity, you have committed almost all of the, shall we say, “grandest” atrocities.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Good point…they have indeed!

          • Jon Sorensen

            I don’t agree with Nietzsche or Marx. Monotheistic holy books incite violence and even Bush and British prime minister were inspired to go to war by Christianity. 20th century was the safest century for humans so far and when religious influence declines world is becoming more peaceful. Mao/Stalin did it because they wanted to advance communism. Atheism was not the motive like religious people have, so your comparison fails.

          • Albert

            I don’t agree with Nietzsche or Marx.

            But they had an interest in people being violent and they looked at what stopped them. You have an interest in saying religion is violent. Which of these two positions looks at the evidence with the most objectivity? Throw in Hitler if you like. He certainly wanted violence and saw Christianity as a threat to this. It just looks to me like you don’t agree because it doesn’t suit you to agree.

            Monotheistic holy books incite violence

            They can be interpreted in that way, it is true. But if you look at Christianity that isn’t the case.

            Bush and British prime minister were inspired to go to war by Christianity

            Which part of Christian teaching are you referring to? Please cite sources.

            20th century was the safest century for humans so far and when religious influence declines world is becoming more peaceful.

            You are kidding surely? WWI, WWII, the holocaust, Stalin, Mao, Cambodia, the Cold War?

            Mao/Stalin did it because they wanted to advance communism. Atheism was not the motive like religious people have, so your comparison fails.

            Atheism is an integral part of communism. And people become communists because they have lost hope in God.

            As I said at the beginning, it is humanity that causes violence, the question is, which world-views are implicated in more violence. I think it’s pretty obvious, both from what people say and what they do.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Christian interest in Nietzsche is only to use him as a strawman stick against atheist.

            “You have an interest in saying religion is violent.”
            No I have evidence in saying religion is violent. Just read the news!

            Hitler was a Catholic who wanted more violence than some of his countrymen. You can ask Jews and they tell you it did not start with Hitler. I went on for centuries.

            “They can be interpreted in that way, it is true. But if you look at Christianity that isn’t the case.”
            Have you ever read the Bible especially NT? Looks like you haven’t.

            Which part of Christian teaching are you referring to?
            Google “Gog Magog Bush Chirac”

            “You are kidding surely? WWI, WWII, the holocaust, Stalin, Mao, Cambodia, the Cold War?”
            Do your homework

            “Atheism is an integral part of communism. ”
            No it’s not. First communists were Christians. Also Jesus team had communists idea having joint treasury and possessions

            “it is humanity that causes violence”
            too broad = nonsense statement

          • Albert

            Christian interest in Nietzsche is only to use him as a strawman stick against atheist.

            How precisely does that falsify his judgement.

            No I have evidence in saying religion is violent. Just read the news!

            I never said that you didn’t. But you’ve made certain claims that are rather larger than that, and you seem determined to avoid the human element in violence.

            Hitler was a Catholic

            Stupid thing to say, and frankly quite desperate. Hitler was quite open in private about wanting to destroy Christianity and his reasons for that.

            You can ask Jews and they tell you it did not start with Hitler. I went on for centuries.

            Certainly there was disgraceful anti-Semitism in the past. But it was not racist anti-Semitism – that took, Darwin and Nietzsche as well. Disagreeing with someone’s beliefs is inevitable. Hating someone for their race is not Christian.

            Have you ever read the Bible especially NT? Looks like you haven’t.

            Another stupid comment. Is it really likely I haven’t read much of the NT? But the claim is yours, so you provide the sources.

            Gog Magog Bush Chirac

            Really, that’s it? I want to know the Christian teaching that defends the invasion of Iraq, not some unverified story leading to some kind of unverified inference.

            Do your homework

            No, you do your homework. You said:

            20th century was the safest century for humans so far and when religious influence declines world is becoming more peaceful.

            If you really believe either claim there, it’s clear evidence means nothing to you.

            No it’s not. First communists were Christians. Also Jesus team had communists idea having joint treasury and possessions

            Now you’re just playing with words. I’m referring to the relevant type of communism – the kind that killed in unprecedented numbers.

            too broad = nonsense statement

            Are you really as daft as you come across? Do you really think the statement that it is human beings that cause violence is a nonsense statement? I recognise that it must be painful being part of the religious category of people who have outclasses pretty well everyone when it comes to mass killing, but trying to answer evidence with a post like this, which rarely rises above a single sentence which fails to provide any recognisable answer or evidence is just poor.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “Stupid thing to say [that Hitler was a Catholic], and frankly quite desperate. Hitler was quite open in private about wanting to destroy Christianity and his reasons for that.”
            I see you have bought into your own propaganda. Just read Mein Kampf and explain how he went after Jews, gays and atheist.

            “Hating someone for their race is not Christian.”
            Christians are not perfect.

            “unverified story”
            French did verify this story. Do your homework before you make your claim.

            “If you really believe either claim there, it’s clear evidence means nothing to you.”
            The Better Angels of Our Nature has the data if you want to read. If you just want the highlights watch Steven Pinker’s lecture. He sights his sources which you can verify yourself if you want.

            “Now you’re just playing with words re First communists were Christians”
            Just read about Pre-Marxist Communism and educate yourself.

            “it must be painful being part of the religious category of people who have outclasses pretty well everyone when it comes to mass killing”
            Typical Christian apologist nonsense. Christian “category” has killed more and many Christians have kill because of their faith. People don’t kill because they don’t believe in something. You seem to become more desperate in your comments…

          • Albert

            This is pretty pathetic.

            Just read Mein Kampf and explain how he went after Jews, gays and atheist.

            No. The claim is yours. You demonstrate that his beliefs were Catholic, and then show, with sources, how he went from Catholic teaching to killing Jews, gays and atheists. I can show that a perverted version of natural selection led to the killing of Jews and gays.

            Christians are not perfect.

            If you claim that Christianity causes X you need to show how. Saying that Christians do not always perfectly follow Christianity is evidence against your position!

            French did verify this story. Do your homework before you make your claim.

            We do not know what was said, nor what was meant. I note with interest that you have evaded the second and more important part of my comment about unverified inference. After all, all Bush need have meant, if he said it at all, is that he thought there was evil at work there – which can hardly be denied.

            The Better Angels of Our Nature has the data if you want to read. If you just want the highlights watch Steven Pinker’s lecture. He sights his sources which you can verify yourself if you want.

            So I’m supposed to do the research to defend your position am I? If you don’t have the knowledge of or confidence in your own evidence, it would be better not to continue.

            Just read about Pre-Marxist Communism and educate yourself.

            The issue, clearly, is the religious position of Marxist Communists, because they are the ones who were doing the killing. Are you really not able to follow the argument, or do you just change the subject because you know you can’t answer it?

            Typical Christian apologist nonsense. Christian “category” has killed more and many Christians have kill because of their faith.

            You have given no evidence for that, and you have missed the point that as a proportion it is undeniable that atheists have murdered far more people than any other group.

            People don’t kill because they don’t believe in something.

            Yes they do. Are you really as naive as you come across? Because they don’t believed in X they don’t like people believing in X and so they kill people who believe in X. Or their worldview, lacking adequate moral foundations fails to prevent them from killing people for other reasons.

          • Jon Sorensen

            If you don’t want to study primary sources it’s your loss, but whenever you are ready to educate yourself you know where to find the info. Ignorance of facts about Jewish persecution do leads to statements like “perverted version of natural selection led to the killing of Jews and gays”

            “We do not know what was said [re Gog and Magog]”
            Well you don’t. The rest of the world knows as we know French went to research the subject.

            “So I’m supposed to do the research to defend your position am I”
            No. you are supposed to do the research to learn.

            “as a proportion it is undeniable that atheists have murdered far more people than any other group”
            Again fact free nonsence claim. How about providing some sources or evidence?

            “Because they don’t believed in X they don’t like people believing in X and so they kill people who believe in X.”
            Your logic fails. Second point does not follow from he first and the third point does not follow from the second. Typical apologist fail.

          • Albert

            If you don’t want to study primary sources it’s your loss

            I’ve studied Mein Kampf. But it’s your argument, so please point out where he shows that (e.g.) the holocaust follows from Catholic teaching.

            Ignorance of facts about Jewish persecution do leads to statements like “perverted version of natural selection led to the killing of Jews and gays”

            You don’t think Hitler was a social Darwinist then? Really?

            Well you don’t. The rest of the world knows as we know French went to research the subject.

            What was the the answer of the US as to what was said and what was meant? You don’t normally accept a position without hearing both sides.

            Again fact free nonsence claim. How about providing some sources or evidence?

            I’ve already given my examples – and they are not controversial. It is also the case that atheists are a small minority in humanity – especially when human history is taken into account. Exactly what do you want me to do? Count bodies and attribute their murders to the correct religion camp? Your empahsis on evidence is particularly ironic, because you have said things like:

            there there will be no peace with religions.

            At least a chance without religions

            Atheism was not the motive like religious people have, so your comparison fails.

            Hitler was a Catholic who wanted more violence than some of his countrymen. You can ask Jews and they tell you it did not start with Hitler. I went on for centuries.

            Have you ever read the Bible especially NT? Looks like you haven’t.

            Do your homework

            Christian “category” has killed more and many Christians have kill because of their faith.

            It’s pretty obvious that your posts are almost entirely fact free. And as for your anthropology:

            Your logic fails. Second point does not follow from he first and the third point does not follow from the second. Typical apologist fail.

            Except that that’s just a spectacular fail. Obviously, when you are trying to explain why someone does something really irrational, you do not have to provide watertight logic!

          • Jon Sorensen

            Good that you have studied Mein Kampf so then you know he was a Christian. And you know how Christian leadership pushed to kill Jews which Hitler admired.

            “Exactly what do you want me to do?”
            Show that those kill are somehow linked to atheism.

            Well then use you logic and show us how logically
            “they don’t believed in X”
            Leads to
            “they don’t like people believing in X”
            Good luck!

          • Albert

            Good that you have studied Mein Kampf so then you know he was a Christian.

            There is nothing in Mein Kampf that makes me think Hitler was a Christian, still less is there that helps me to get from Christian teaching to his violence against Jews. The argument is yours, please provide evidence.

            Show that those kill are somehow linked to atheism.

            Isn’t it obvious that people like Stalin and Mao are atheists?

            Well then use you logic and show us how logically
            “they don’t believed in X”
            Leads to
            “they don’t like people believing in X”

            I’ve explained already that I don’t need to make a logically tight argument for the point to be sound. If you’re so out of touch with humanity, just look at the British Labour Party. Some individuals don’t believe in certain things and they want to eliminate (from the party) those that do.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “There is nothing in Mein Kampf that makes me think Hitler was a Christian”
            You clearly haven’t read it. If you had read the chapter Race and People you would have know what kind of Jesus fanboy Hitler was and why/how he attacked and insulted Jews.

            “Isn’t it obvious that people like Stalin and Mao are atheists”
            They also didn’t believe in stamp collecting and non-stamp collectors do not have holy book/creed to kill people. So you need to show how the link between someone being atheist and killing.

            “I’ve explained already that I don’t need to make a logically tight argument for the point to be sound”
            Your argument is NOT sound as it is not valid and you have not show it to be true. Your logic fails

            So one more time show us how logically
            “they don’t believed in X”
            Leads to
            “they don’t like people believing in X”

          • Albert

            You clearly haven’t read it.

            You say this as if it is some kind of slur against my character not to have read the whole of Mein Kampf. What kind of person does?

            If you had read the chapter Race and People you would have know what kind of Jesus fanboy Hitler was and why/how he attacked and insulted Jews.

            You clearly didn’t read my post. I said: “There is nothing in Mein Kampf that makes me think Hitler was a Christian, still less is there that helps me to get from Christian teaching to his violence against Jews. The argument is yours, please provide evidence.” Now firstly, the fact that Hitler goes on about Christianity does not make him a Christian. One of the most famous things about Hitler is that he was a liar. Did the Sudeten crisis pass you by? The fact that Hitler says “This is the final territorial demand I have to make in Europe,” does not mean that it is his final territorial demand. On 28th April 1939, Hitler said this:

            Finally, Mr. Roosevelt asks that assurances be given him that the German armed forces will not attack, and above all, not invade, the territory or possessions of the following independent nations. He then names as those to which he refers: Finland, Lithuania, Latvia,’ Estonia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain , Ireland, [about now, deputies start laughing – Hitler is making a joke of the “absurdity” of the list] France, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Poland, Hungary, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Russia, Bulgaria, Turkey, Iraq, the Arabias, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Iran.

            Answers I have first taken the trouble to ascertain from the states mentioned, firstly, whether they feel themselves threatened, and, what is most important, secondly, whether this inquiry by the American President was addressed to us at their suggestion or at least with their consent.

            The reply was in all cases negative, in some instances strongly so. It is true that there were certain ones among the states and nations mentioned, whom I could not question because they themselves – as for example, Syria – are at present not in possession of their freedom, but are under occupation by the military agents of democratic states and consequently deprived of their rights.

            Apart from this fact, however, all states bordering on Germany have received much more binding assurances and -particularly, more binding proposals than Mr. Roosevelt asked from me in his curious telegram.

            Now in fairness, Hitler did not in fact attack all those countries. But how secure were those countries that bordered Germany?

            This is why I said “There is nothing in Mein Kampf that makes me think Hitler was a Christian.” Only someone who is culpably naive or else, thick and ignorant, would think that Mein Kampf is evidence of Hitler’s Christian faith. But I went on: “still less is there that helps me to get from Christian teaching to his violence against Jews. The argument is yours, please provide evidence.” You’ve rather vaguely cited a chapter. I want to see the precise quotations, please.

            They also didn’t believe in stamp collecting and non-stamp collectors do not have holy book/creed to kill people. So you need to show how the link between someone being atheist and killing.

            You asked me “Show that those kill are somehow linked to atheism.” and I answered that point. Now you change your question to stay in the game. Somehow it seems a higher standard of proof is demanded by you than you give to me. Richard Wurmbrand, who has been tortured for his faith in communist prisons, says,

            The cruelty of atheism is hard to believe when man has no faith in the reward of good or the punishment of evil. There is no reason to be human. There is no restraint from the depths of evil which is in man. The communist torturers often said, ‘There is no God, no Hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish.’ I have heard one torturer even say, ‘I thank God, in whom I don’t believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart.’ He expressed it in unbelievable brutality and torture inflicted on prisoners.

            And here’s Roger Scruton:

            Religions survive and flourish because they are a call to membership — they provide customs, beliefs and rituals that unite the generations in a shared way of life, and implant the seeds of mutual respect. Like every form of social life, they are inflamed at the edges, where they compete for territory with other faiths. To blame religion for the wars conducted in its name, however, is like blaming love for the Trojan war. All human motives, even the most noble, will feed the flames of conflict when subsumed by the ‘territorial imperative’ — this too Darwin teaches us. Take religion away, as the Nazis and the communists did, and you do nothing to suppress the pursuit of Lebensraum. You simply remove the principal source of mercy in the ordinary human heart and so make war pitiless; atheism found its proof at Stalingrad.

            It’s the Darwin bit in the middle that counts – the struggle between people is inbuilt owing to evolution by natural selection. Thus, as I said at the beginning, it is human beings that cause violence. When we take away religion, they don’t then stop being violent, the evidence is that they are more violent. you can pick at their logic if you like, but that is to miss the point. No one these days believes the naive idea that people always behave rationally. But one thing is certain, an atheist who does a good deed that is contrary to his own interest behaves irrationally.

            Your argument is NOT sound as it is not valid and you have not show it to be true. Your logic fails
            So one more time show us how logically
            “they don’t believed in X”
            Leads to
            “they don’t like people believing in X”

            I don’t want to be rude, but is there a problem with translation here? This is what I said:

            Obviously, when you are trying to explain why someone does something really irrational, you do not have to provide watertight logic!

            And in reply you said

            Well then use you logic and show us how logically
            “they don’t believed in X”
            Leads to
            “they don’t like people believing in X”
            Good luck!

            And I said again:

            I’ve explained already that I don’t need to make a logically tight argument for the point to be sound. If you’re so out of touch with humanity, just look at the British Labour Party. Some individuals don’t believe in certain things and they want to eliminate (from the party) those that do.

            This is just bizarre isn’t it? I say, you do not need a logical argument to show why people behave irrationally (i.e. illogically) and you say “But your explanation fails logically”. Obviously it fails logically, we are talking about people murdering others by the 10s of millions – or do you think that is rational behaviour? Here you are stuck, if you stick to your demand for a logical explanation for that behaviour, you imply mass murder is rational on atheism. If on the other hand, you admit mass murder is not irrational, then you are irrational to demand a logical explanation.

            So which is it to be?

          • Jon Sorensen

            “There is nothing in Mein Kampf that makes me think Hitler was a Christian”
            So what did you make out of Hitler’s story driving people out of the Temple in that Chapter? Is he Jew, atheist, Christian or Muslim?

            “One of the most famous things about Hitler is that he was a liar”
            Irrelevant there. If you had read the passage you would understand that he did what he promised in that passage. He told the truth.

            “I answered that point. Now you change your question to stay in the game.”
            Do I didn’t. What is the link or causality that someone is an atheist and that he kills. You haven’t shown that. Anecdotes are nice but those are just anecdotes

            “When we take away religion, they don’t then stop being violent, the evidence is that they are more violent”
            Reality does not support this. Less religious countries are less violent. More religious countries are more violent. Why don’t you provide some evidence not anecdotes.

            “I say, you do not need a logical argument to show why people behave irrationally”
            You need to show causality. “not need a logical argument” is just nonsense if you try to make your case.

            “Obviously it fails logically, we are talking about people murdering others by the 10s of millions – or do you think that is rational behaviour?”
            You need to think. Stalin had his reason(s) why he killed people even if to us it is irrational. Once you understand reason(s) you get the logic.

            “you associate atheism with mass murder”
            No. I can’t link not believing something to action of killing someone.

          • Albert

            So what did you make out of Hitler’s story driving people out of the Temple in that Chapter?

            I thought it was utter garbage, that makes no sense of either history or Christian teaching. Jesus drives them out of the Temple, not because he hated Jews but because he was Jewish himself and was cleansing the Temple. He is not opposed to them because they are Jewish but because they are misusing the Temple, and preventing it from being used properly by other Jews.

            Is he Jew, atheist, Christian or Muslim?

            Assuming you are referring to Hitler, it’s obvious he isn’t Jewish, and the ideas are not Christian. He obviously isn’t a Muslim, so that leave atheism. But your question here is bogus – as if these are the only possibilities. The reality is that Hitler is a psychotic liar. It’s not what he says, but who he is trying to convince, that matters.

            Irrelevant there. If you had read the passage you would understand that he did what he promised in that passage. He told the truth.

            This is a painting by numbers approach. Mein Kampf is designed not only to tell people his message, but to convince them as well. To do this, he is honest about his message, but lies about the things he says are important, so as to connect with people. It’s fairly standard procedure for personalities like this.

            Do I didn’t.

            I answered your question and you changed the question.

            What is the link or causality that someone is an atheist and that he kills. You haven’t shown that. Anecdotes are nice but those are just anecdotes

            Given how little evidence you have supplied for your own position, I’m surprised that evidence matters to you. But what kind of evidence would you find convincing? You look like a fundamentalist, for whom no amount of epicycles is too many to maintain your world-view in the face of contrary evidence. I’m sorry BTW that you think that the story of a man being tortured is only an anecdote.

            Reality does not support this. Less religious countries are less violent. More religious countries are more violent. Why don’t you provide some evidence not anecdotes.

            Stalin’s USSR, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia? These are countries in which religion has been completely suppressed. They include extraordinary amounts of violence. And why don’t you provide some evidence for your own position?

            “not need a logical argument” is just nonsense if you try to make your case.

            Logic does not explain the behaviour of the illogical – as your post are ably demonstrating.

            You need to think. Stalin had his reason(s) why he killed people even if to us it is irrational. Once you understand reason(s) you get the logic.

            Are you seriously saying that Stalin killed people because of deductive logic? If so, what are the premises and the reasonings he used, and where did he get the premises?

            No. I can’t link not believing something to action of killing someone.

            Well, here’s one possibility already shown: human beings have a desire for lebensraum. If you take away the thing that seeks to prevent that desire being put into practice, then the chances are you will get more violence. Another possibility, because atheism is hopeless, one becomes a communist, and seeks to remake this world. But one is told that religion stops this. Therefore one tries to get rid of religion. Again, religion provides an absolute view of the world. But the totalitarianisms have a total view of the world without God. Thus religion threatens the atheistic view, and on a totalitarian worldview needs to be removed, and there is no source for mercy, because all we have is the pitiless indifference of the material world.

            I could go on…

          • Jon Sorensen

            “the ideas are not Christian. He obviously isn’t a Muslim, so that leave atheism.”
            The idea of cleansing the Temple is Christian. The idea of persecuting Jews is Christian. Hitler uses “atheism” as an insult. Your cognitive bias is strong!

            But according to you and apologists Hitler had to fake being Christian to get Christians to become Nazis and murder people. What does it tell you about dangers of Christianity?

            “The reality is that Hitler is a psychotic liar”
            I already address this. What he said here he implemented. He said the truth here and your “psychotic liar” is just false distraction re this issue.

            “But what kind of evidence would you find convincing?”
            Just provide the best evidence you have.

            “You look like a fundamentalist, for whom no amount of epicycles is too many to maintain your world-view in the face of contrary evidence.”
            You don’t provide evidence but claim that I face of contrary evidence. Don’t you even see the contradiction in your claim. Religious world views are mainly fact and evidence free. Religious people seem to have the world-view crisis.

            “I’m sorry BTW that you think that the story of a man being tortured is only an anecdote”
            Anecdote is a “a short interesting story about a real person”. You picked a best single data point that support your case. The full truth would have a lot more data points than your best example.

            “And why don’t you provide some evidence for your own position?”
            Country violence/peace data
            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index
            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
            Correlates fairly well with “Importance of religion by country”
            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country
            Generally more religious countries are more violent

            “because atheism is hopeless”
            Typical religious ignorance. The only hope we have is atheism

          • Albert

            The idea of cleansing the Temple is Christian.

            Sure, but the interpretation/idea of Hitler is not Christian.

            The idea of persecuting Jews is Christian.

            Where is this to be found in Christian teaching? Please cite sources.

            Hitler uses “atheism” as an insult. Your cognitive bias is strong!

            Certainly have one thing in common with Hitler: you are, as I think Bullock said “terrifyingly literal.” Of course Hitler uses atheism as an insult, he is trying to win people over who are not atheists.

            But according to you and apologists Hitler had to fake being Christian to get Christians to become Nazis and murder people. What does it tell you about dangers of Christianity?

            It tells me that Christians are weak when they stand closer to the world that to their faith.

            He said the truth here and your “psychotic liar” is just false distraction re this issue.

            Please explain how. You don’t seem to see that an assertion is not an argument.

            Just provide the best evidence you have.

            I’ve provided several pieces of evidence, but you say you are not convinced. So I ask what kind of evidence would convince you, and you are unable to provide a standard. Well that keeps you psychologically safe.

            You don’t provide evidence but claim that I face of contrary evidence.

            Are you quite well Jon? Surely, it is evident to any reader that the opposite is true.

            Religious world views are mainly fact and evidence free.

            That’s a prejudice and it is not true.

            You picked a best single data point that support your case.

            But you just said I had provided no evidence.

            Correlates fairly well with “Importance of religion by country”

            It also correlates quite well with “being brown skinned”, and it evades the evidence of the last Century. If you took the survey between 1914 and 1945 what would it look like then?

            Typical religious ignorance. The only hope we have is atheism

            If you put your hope in atheism, then you have a reason to do violence to people who threaten atheism.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “The idea of persecuting Jews is Christian. Where is this to be found in Christian teaching?”
            This is long standing idea. Read Luther’s “On the Jews and Their Lies”. Jews were already framed at Matthew 27:25.

            “Hitler uses atheism as an insult, he is trying to win people over who are not atheists.”
            Exactly. He used atheism as an insult, persecuted atheist and won Christians over. Standard Christian practice.

            “It tells me that Christians are weak when they stand closer to the world that to their faith.”
            by weak you mean they are ready to follow dictators to commit genocides just like God’s follower in the Bible. Nothing new.

            “But you just said I had provided no evidence.”
            Learn the difference between evidence and anecdote

            “It also correlates quite well with “being brown skinned”
            Typical nonsense. Skin colour has not changed like violence has reduced when atheism has become more common.

            “If you put your hope in atheism, then you have a reason to do violence to people who threaten atheism.”
            This is were Christian logic fails. They can never explain how “hope in atheism” leads to “to do violence”. Watch your self to mumble this answer…

          • Albert

            Read Luther’s “On the Jews and Their Lies”.

            Are you seriously saying to me, as a Catholic, that Martin Luther is an authority on Christianity?

            Jews were already framed at Matthew 27:25.

            Matthew 27.25 says what some Jews said. It does not say that all said it. It does not make it true. (Clue: the Bible is clearly not commending or endorsing things said by the Jewish crowd in Matthew 27. If that isn’t obvious, then I don’t know what is). In any case, you conveniently omit Christian teaching to the contrary, for example Jesus’ own words on what to do to those who persecute us, let alone those who have done nothing wrong to us.

            He used atheism as an insult, persecuted atheist and won Christians over. Standard Christian practice.

            I have already said the problem was the weakness of Christianity in those who heard him.

            by weak you mean they are ready to follow dictators to commit genocides just like God’s follower in the Bible.

            I agree with the former, but I do not know what you mean by God’s follower in the Bible.

            Learn the difference between evidence and anecdote

            Anecdote is a kind of evidence, but I would point out that I have given more evidence than simply the account of the abuse of a Christian in prison. I’m sorry that you do not see that as evidence.

            Skin colour has not changed like violence has reduced when atheism has become more common.

            Did you really say that? Violence has reduced as atheism has become more common? Violence increased in the 20th Century, and it was done by atheists. It’s not good you saying “they didn’t do it because they were atheists”, the fact is your statement is false.

            This is were Christian logic fails. They can never explain how “hope in atheism” leads to “to do violence”. Watch your self to mumble this answer…

            It’s not at all difficult. People, finding something they cherish and hope in, is under threat, wish to remove that threat. For some people, will still do so, even if violence is the only way.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “Matthew 27.25 says what some Jews said”
            No it doesn’t. It says what a Christian author 80+ year later wrote from third hand info. Jews thought you just made up your Jesus-God.

            “Martin Luther is an authority on Christianity?”
            He was very influential author on Christianity if you haven’t heard about him. His Christian interpretation has cost a lot of lives. BTW he disputed Indulgence and Limbo. Indulgence seems to be still ongoing, but now you decided that Luther was right and abandoned Limbo. Luther has even influence Catholics.

            “I’m sorry that you do not see that as evidence.”
            So if I give a counter anecdote will that over ride your anecdote. Anecdotes are designed to bias your view, that’s why you give your best, not typical, anecdote. You can’t find the whole truth in anecdotes, but I it looks like that is not your goal.

            “Violence increased in the 20th Century, and it was done by atheists”
            Nonsense. Pinker’s data shows otherwise, but you don’t want to read it as it does not fit into your own narrative.

            “It’s not at all difficult. People, finding something they cherish and hope in, is under threat, wish to remove that threat. For some people, will still do so, even if violence is the only way.”
            I told you that you would give a vague mumble. If some don’t use violence you need to find an actual reason what causes the violence. You should study logic. Maybe that could help your thinking. I think a lot of Christians are Christians because they are not thinking clearly.

          • Albert

            It says what a Christian author 80+ year later wrote from third hand info.

            The Gospel of Matthew was not written 80+ years later. But you miss my point. The Bible is not teaching Christians can persecute Jews – I have amply demonstrated that, and you have missed most of the argument.

            He was very influential author on Christianity if you haven’t heard about him.

            Obviously, as a Catholic I do not take Luther as an authority.

            BTW he disputed Indulgence and Limbo. Indulgence seems to be still ongoing, but now you decided that Luther was right and abandoned Limbo. Luther has even influence Catholics.

            Limbo was never taught de fide, and I would have thought it could still be held as an opinion. Benedict did not draw back from limbo on the authority of Luther.

            So if I give a counter anecdote will that over ride your anecdote. Anecdotes are designed to bias your view, that’s why you give your best, not typical, anecdote. You can’t find the whole truth in anecdotes, but I it looks like that is not your goal.

            You said there was not evidence, so I gave evidence, and showed there was evidence. You may not be convinced by the evidence, but that is a different matter. There is evidence, and your claim was factually false.

            Pinker’s data shows otherwise, but you don’t want to read it as it does not fit into your own narrative.

            I don’t want to read it because my reading list is already very long and Pinker’s position is already disputed. But even if I accept that there is less violence it is a failure of logic to say that that is because of atheism. Consider the whole range of possible causes, and you happen to fall on the one that suits you. On the contrary, given the massive amount of violent perpetrated by atheists, then if the overall amount of violence is declining, the violence perpetrated by atheists stands out as even greater than I had said.

            If some don’t use violence you need to find an actual reason what causes the violence. You should study logic.

            Which is ironic because the same point would logically apply to Christians and other religious people. Most people are religious, the number of religious people who are violent is small, therefore the cause of the violence must, on your argument be something else.

            Which leads me to say this:

            You should study logic. Maybe that could help your thinking. I think a lot of atheists are atheists because they are not thinking clearly.

            Do you see what I did there?

          • Jon Sorensen

            “The Gospel of Matthew was not written 80+ years later”
            You brought into your own propaganda. Some parts of it were added probably 120 years after Jesus.

            “But you miss my point. The Bible is not teaching Christians can persecute Jews”
            Just your opinion. Luther and other disagree, and see what has happened over the years. Deuteronomy 13:6-12 is not really kind to non-Yahweh/Jesus?-God believers.

            “Limbo was never taught de fide”
            LOL. Catholic taught if forever and implemented prayers for people in Limbo. Now they argue on technicality. Catholic just can’t accept they were wrong. Much Cognitive Bias…

            “You said there was not evidence, so I gave evidence”
            You as still so confused. If an argument is that group A is more violent that group B, then giving an anecdote that a member of group A was violent is not evidence for the argument. This is the fallacy of composition you are pushing as evidence.

            “I don’t want to read it because… Pinker’s position is already disputed.”
            Of course it is disputed by apologists, but not by historians. Interestingly apologists have not disputed his data, but just like you they dispute it without reading it… Christian heard mentality. But interesting to see that you don’t want to read already disputed position, except when it comes to material of your own faith.

            “On the contrary, given the massive amount of violent perpetrated by atheists”
            More fact-free nonsense. People still don’t act on something they don’t believe. This is so hard for Christian mind. I wonder if Christians are so violent because they don’t believe in invisible unicorns… But remember 20th century was safer than any previous century when Christians ruled.

            “Which is ironic because the same point would logically apply to Christians and other religious people”
            Because Christian holy book advocates violence in many occasion. Atheist have no official book to advocate any violence. As a Catholic you might have heard about inquisition run by 85 popes in a row. Remember your church had a department to design, test, manufacture and wholesale distribute torture equipment. And a department to find victims and torture them and kill people if their ideas were not same as yours. Seriously, have a think about that a bit. Torture equipment manufacturer and torturer for centuries. And you and your torture equipment manufacturing church blame atheists for violence. Unbelievable Catholic cognitive bias and arrogance.

          • Albert

            You brought into your own propaganda. Some parts of it were added probably 120 years after Jesus.

            What is your evidence for this?

            Just your opinion. Luther and other disagree, and see what has happened over the years. Deuteronomy 13:6-12 is not really kind to non-Yahweh/Jesus?-God believers.

            It’s not just my opinion. Luther is no authority for any Catholic – and even most Protestants, even Lutherans would be cautious about saying he is an authority, since they would appeal to scripture for that, and say Luther is an authority only insofar as he says what scripture says. Now that brings me to your Deuteronomy passage. I ask you for evidence that Christian teaching is anti-Semitic, and you point me to a Jewish text! And not only that, it is plainly a law which a Christian cannot follow, for to do so would contradict Jesus’ teaching.

            LOL. Catholic taught if forever and implemented prayers for people in Limbo. Now they argue on technicality. Catholic just can’t accept they were wrong. Much Cognitive Bias…

            LOL too! You’ve plainly confused limbo and purgatory, since there would be no sense in praying for souls in limbo. Now as for the idea that the difference between the faith and not faith is only a technicality, you are plainly pig ignorant. How can the difference between the faith and not the faith be only a technicality? It’s too silly for words – the kind of nonsense of someone who thinks limbo is purgatory.

            If an argument is that group A is more violent that group B, then giving an anecdote that a member of group A was violent is not evidence for the argument.

            It is evidence – it is just that it is not compelling evidence. Am I right in thinking English your second language? You don’t seem to understand how the words work. Supposing a scientist does a text on one item of set X, and finds result Y. He now has evidence that items in set X yield Y. It’s not compelling evidence, because it is only one example, but if one example cannot count as evidence then you could never have evidence for any set that was made up of parts, for each part would not count as evidence.

            This is the fallacy of composition you are pushing as evidence.

            No, it’s plainly not the fallacy of composition. The fallacy of composition involves moving from “All individuals in set X have quality Y” to “Therefore set X has quality Y.” But I have made no claim of the all the individuals in the set, thus I have not committed this fallacy. In any case, it is hard to know sometimes when this fallacy is in play. After all, if I say “All the bricks in this cementless wall are red” I would think it very unreasonable and strange if you said it was fallacious reasoning to conclude “therefore the wall is red.”

            Of course it is disputed by apologists, but not by historians.

            From which I can infer that you have rarely set foot in any kind of genuinely academic faculty. For if you had, you would know that almost nothing said by one historian goes undisputed by other historians. This point ought to be obvious in that, if the evidence were so compelling, Pinker’s book would hardly be worth writing, since everyone would believe it already. Anyway, you are just plain wrong to pretend it is disputed only by apologists. Besides, as far as I can see, I can accept the thesis that violence is declining without accepting that atheism is the cause of this decline. Why would it be?

            But interesting to see that you don’t want to read already disputed position, except when it comes to material of your own faith.

            You don’t know what I read. But you have already let slip that you don’t read seriously about positions you dispute – indeed as your bungled reference to the fallacy of composition demonstrates, you don’t even read about the positions you defend half the time.

            “On the contrary, given the massive amount of violent perpetrated by atheists”
            More fact-free nonsense. People still don’t act on something they don’t believe.

            Sorry, is there a translation problem here? You seem to be unable to distinguish between:

            1. Atheists murder people.

            and

            2. Atheism causes people to murder people.

            You seem, bizarrely, to deny 1. because you deny 2.

            But remember 20th century was safer than any previous century when Christians ruled.

            Now this is where there are serious problems. It appears that Pinker is confusing battle deaths and violent deaths. The former may be declining, but that does not mean that violent deaths are declining. As we know, in the great secular wars of the 20th Century, huge loses were off the battlefield. Moreover, look how close we can to nuclear holocaust. Had that happened, would you have said the world was less violent? And what about all the people sent to camps and gulags? The violence of the 20th Century, that it even has a name: Hemoclysm.

            Because Christian holy book advocates violence in many occasion.

            But it’s principle teacher – Christ – advocates turning the other cheek.

            Atheist have no official book to advocate any violence.

            Ahh. So because there is no agreed text for atheists, then atheism cannot be responsible for violence. Well in that case, since Luther is not an agreed text for Christianity, then Luther cannot be responsible for Christian violence. Moreover, if your argument works (which it doesn’t, it’s truly terrible), then you would have to say that atheism cannot be responsible for peace either.

            As a Catholic you might have heard about inquisition run by 85 popes in a row.

            Inquisitions were typically far less violent than secular authorities, and they were founded, in part, to prevent mob violence.

            And you and your torture equipment manufacturing church blame atheists for violence. Unbelievable Catholic cognitive bias and arrogance.

            What I said was that human beings cause violence. I would add that atheists have been particularly violent – both in terms of sheer numbers and, even more, in terms of proportions.

        • ZX10

          Yes as humans have never gone to war over politics/land/water/food/women/opium have they ?

          • Jon Sorensen

            I never claimed religion is the only reason for war. I just said with religions we will never have peace.

    • IanCad

      Tell us again now; How many were there who died under the godless regimes of Stalin & Mao?

      • Jon Sorensen

        70M?

        • IanCad

          As the figures have a considerable range you are probably close.
          If we further add all the wars of territorial conquest; those of restraining tyrants (Napoleon, Hitler.) Not forgetting the Afro/Arab slave trade, neither the Roman Empire, nor the billion and one half aborted babies, then those seventy six millions increase many fold.
          Of course we have the bloody spread of Islam but it is not for nothing that it was referred to as the bandit religion. Same in South America – God or Gold?
          No doubt victims during the Inquisition and the Reformation were in the millions, but, contrary to claims of the atheist collective, the numbers killed in religious strife pale when compared to the depredations of godless self-serving tyrannies.

          • Jon Sorensen

            ” the numbers killed in religious strife pale when compared to the depredations of godless self-serving tyrannies.”
            Nonsense. Even last century religious rulers killed more. It is the apologists who push false info you bought into. You can do your own study and count this from Rommel’s mid rage numbers online if you doubt this.

            Religious rulers have more blood in their hands; Queen Victoria, Hirohito, Hitler, Leopold II and many more. And they did it in the name of their religion or as a defender of their faith, unlike Mao/Stalin.

          • carl jacobs

            Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Hitler!?

          • A good Catholic boy, don’t ya know.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Yes. Hitler and his army was a Christian like it or not. You are welcome to read the primary sources rather than third hand table talks.

          • carl jacobs

            You presume much.

            So, please. Do point out these “primary sources” to me.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Mein Kampf is of course the most famous one. Find out who he thinks are the two “Statesmen” he admired. And find out his opinion about God and creationism. You can also read his Reichstag speech 1936. What he said and got people to follow him.

            You can also check coins issued under his watch. Did those have Christians, Muslim or atheist symbols. Or check the fighting gear issued under his watch to his soldiers. Or find out where his hatred against Jews came from. Or check out if he actually said to Gerhard Engel “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so”.

          • carl jacobs

            I see. Have you ever in your life heard of “Positive Christianity”? Quick! Tell me from which primary source I lifted the following quote?

            Thus the world did not proceed from the life of the saviour (soter) but from his death and its miraculous consequences. This is the
            single motif of the Pauline epistles. Goethe, on the contrary, held that it was the life of Christ which was important, not his death. In this
            he was attesting to the soul of the Germanic west expressed in Positive Christianity, as opposed to negative Christianity based on
            priesthood and witch mania and deriving from Etruscan Asiatic concepts.

            So please. Do detail for us the religious doctrine to which Adolf Hitler adhered. What did he mean by “Christianity?” What did the NSDAP mean by paragraph 24 of its party program?

            We demand liberty for all religions denominations in the State,
            so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the moral
            feelings of the German race.

            The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind
            itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the
            Jewish-materialist spirit within us and without us, and is convinced that
            our nation can only achieve permanent health from within on the principle

          • Jon Sorensen

            You nicely avoided the researching primary sources. Why do you want to avoid the truth?

            I don’t know much about Positive Christianity. It seem to be a denomination just like Church of England, built on top of Christianity while adding contemporary elements. Seems to be irrelevant to the question on hand.

          • carl jacobs

            You nicely avoided …

            Avoid what? You didn’t cite anything. You provided a list. I didn’t put references in my post last night because I wondered if you knew who Alfred Rosenberg was. I added them the references this morning for your convenience. That’s a cite, Jon.

            I don’t know much about Positive Christianity.

            Well, that explains a lot. I suspect you have never heard of the phrase Gottgläubig either.

            Here’s the deal. You don’t categorize someone according to the label they apply to themselves. You categorize according to the content behind the label.

            John Shelby Spong is a retired bishop in the Episcopal Church. He calls himself a Christian. He wrote 12 Theses for a New Reformation.

            http://progressivechristianity.org/resources/charting-the-new-reformation-part-iii-the-twelve-theses/

            Here is Thesis 1.

            Understanding God in theistic categories as “a being, supernatural in power, dwelling somewhere external to the world and capable of invading the world with miraculous power” is no longer believable. Most God talk in liturgy and conversation has thus become meaningless.

            Now, what would you call him, Jon? Here is a hint. The word starts with “a”.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Do you have truthphobia or why are you avoiding primary sources? Don’t ask me to do your homework.

          • carl jacobs

            Heh. Bluster isn’t a good substitute for argument. You should try a different tactic. And I already did my homework.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Still avoiding the primary source I see…

          • carl jacobs

            There is a method to this process, Jon. It works like this.

            1. You find a citation in a reference.
            2. You post the citation along with a link.
            3. You make an argument explaining why your citation supports your position.

            I have no intention of responding to an unstated inference just because you can’t be bothered to type it out in a post.

            But, actually, don’t bother. You came onto this board to pontificate about Christianity and Nazism, and then promptly admitted that you don’t know anything about “Positive Christianity”. You couldn’t have proved more definitively that you don’t know what you are talking about if you had purposely set about to do so. You are like someone who says “That Pavel Milyukov was a Communist. By the way. Who is this Marx guy?”

            And, no, I don’t care that you don’t recognize the name of Pavel Milyukov.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “You came onto this board to pontificate about Christianity and Nazism, and then promptly admitted that you don’t know anything about “Positive Christianity”
            Typical apologist lie. I did NOT say that I don’t know anything about Positive Christianity.

            I pointed you to Primary source of Hitler’s ideology and one of his famous speeches, but you seem to be allergic to main evidence and throw a temper tantrums. You keep on trying to go off topic by talking about Communism, Milyukov, Marx and anything to ignore the issue I commented. And Positive Christianity is irrelevant. Hitler was Catholic and like in many countries Christianity evolved. In Germany there was Positive Christianity. This just shows some of Hitler men were Positive Christians, just like I said Hitler’s army was a Christian like it or not.

          • IanCad

            When talking of the vast numbers killed by the irreligious I hesitate to use the term, small beer, but the numbers killed by Christians, compared to the former is exactly that. Just because a leader proclaims a belief in a deity does not mean he/she will use force to enforce that creed.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Most of Stalin’s soldiers were Christians. Ever thought about why Stalin went after all Jews, but not after all Christians?

        • Albert

          No that would be Mao by himself.

          • Jon Sorensen

            R.J. Rummel megastudies (www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/) puts Mao’s democide kills to 35.2M and total deaths ~45M or up. WWII deaths should probably be excluded as Hitler and Japan started most of the conflicts.

          • Albert

            View vary. In the end, we are talking about murders so high that we don’t know with any certainty, not merely to the nearest million but the nearest ten million.

      • Royinsouthwest

        Don’t forget Pol Pot in Cambodia.

    • Dreadnaught

      The religious motivation for war inrecent times, was largely absent before the invention of the nation and victim status of Palestine which lays claim to the existence of the immutable Islamic tenure of real estate in the Middle East. Mankind is more than capable of horrendous deeds of violent aquisition without divine attachment. That said, making the claim of divine inspiration and direction does tend to make for a more secure settlement and mask the true motivation.

      • Jon Sorensen

        “The religious motivation for war inrecent times, was largely absent before the invention of the nation”
        Not quite. Hitler motivated his troops with Christianity. British wars have been blessed by Defenders of the Faith. Bush war motivated by Bible to go to war.

        “the immutable Islamic tenure of real estate in the Middle East”
        This is why there is wars. Both/all parties claim their God is the correct real estate broker. This is why religion must go for us to have peace.

    • Inspector General

      Here’s a question that has never been asked of you. Or at least, this man here doesn’t recall it. How far would you go to discourage religion in society?

      • Dominic Stockford

        You mean, would he kill me to prevent me preaching what he regards as the highly dangerous and divisive perversion of Christianity?

      • Jon Sorensen

        In short:
        1) Religions should lose their privileges; Seats in upper house, tax breaks, Government funding, religious exemption, blue laws, Sharia courts etc. They should compete in the market place of ideas like everyone else.
        2) Minors must get commonly agree education, health care and care. No genital mutilation, under age marriage etc.

        What adults do or think should be pretty free as long as it does not hurt others.

        • Inspector General

          Good Lord! That’s a tall order. You don’t go in for half shares, obviously…

          Well, so long as you consider your campaigning having nothing more than hobby status, you won’t be too disappointed.

          Anyway, your end is bad. There is enough corrupt youth out there. Tattoos, bad clothing, funny coloured hair, obese, illegitimacy, idleness. Doesn’t that convince of the right wing way of doing things. Personal pride and responsibility and all that…

          • Jon Sorensen

            Strange that Christians don’t like equal right and look after kids…

            “There is enough corrupt youth out there. Tattoos, bad clothing, funny coloured hair, obese, illegitimacy, idleness.”
            The world is better than ever in the history of mankind, and Christianity is declining. Fear mongering seems to be the last available tool.

          • Inspector General

            How it must vex that parents can bring up their children without having to follow ‘helpful advice’ like yours. As for this equal rights business, there’s no such ideal. Just appreciate you are better than some, even if you’re not as good as others.

          • Jon Sorensen

            You are confused. I support parent rights to bring up kids without my advice.
            Education, health care and care for all kids is only controversial in religious circles. Strange. Well there are support groups for people leaving religions.
            As for this equal rights business… if Christians are discriminated against they make a big deal about in newspaper and social media. When Christians discriminate they just brush it off with “there’s no such ideal”. Such is Christian thought.

          • Inspector General

            Goodbye

    • Martin

      Jon

      And your religion of self-worship? Would you like that to disappear?

      • Jon Sorensen

        You are still pushing your nonsense.

        • Merchantman

          …..And you yours.

        • Martin

          Jon

          Oh dear, was that too near the mark?

    • The problem is not with religions as such. Neither is it with ideologies (which generally are given religious authority). Nor is the problem race, wealth, gender etc. These provide the occasion but not the cause; the cause is the human heart. It is wicked.

      • Jon Sorensen

        No. Your holy book incites violence and discrimination. It causes and amplifies problems. Ask LGBT people if you are not sure about his. Or ask women who want to be bishops if religious beliefs cause them gender problems.

        • It certainly does not incite violence. Even those whose lifestyles it disapproves are to be treated with respect and love.

          • Jon Sorensen

            My Bible says:
            “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
            Doesn’t your?

          • The same bible says that the era of the old covenant of law is passed. It existed as a God-given legal Jewish civil and religious code until Christ who brought it to an end. This is why you don’t find Christians trying to implement that code and live like Orthodox Jews.

            If we take any book, pluck a passage from it without reference to its place in its storyline, it can be easily made to seem to say what it doesn’t. As is often said, a text, without a context, is a pretext.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Christ did not brought it to an end. He said “till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” He did not overturn the Law.

            Christians seem to pick and choose from the OT. Do you really think ten commandments don’t stand any more?

            The same problem is in Romans 1:27 anyways. NT is similar if not work for LGBT.

            “If we take any book, pluck a passage from it without reference to its
            place in its storyline, it can be easily made to seem to say what it
            doesn’t. As is often said, a text, without a context, is a pretext.”
            In which context is Leviticus 20:13 positive or neutral towards LGBT??

          • All is fulfilled in him. And it is fulfilled in his people as they live by the command by Christ to love in the power of the Spirit. Love Scripture tells us, is a fulfilling of the law. Read Galatians. Read Romans 7,8. Read Hebrews. The old Covenant of law has come to an end as all it aspired to is realised in the new covenant of Messiah.

            Again, why do Christians not live as Orthodox Jews. They would if they old covenant of law were still in force.

            That being said, The Bible does see homosexual practices as sinful. Only in the OT theocracy of law did it call for the death penalty (as it did for adultery). It regards homosexual practices as against the created natural order. Those who practice it will not enter the kingdom of God. Nor will any other habitual sexual sinners, drunkards etc

            Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Cor 6

            The list is not exhaustive but indicative of gross sins that are put away by those who have become Christians and pursue holiness in the fear of God.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “All is fulfilled in him”
            So he is not coming back during end times if all is already fulfilled?

            “why do Christians not live as Orthodox Jews.”
            They don’t follow Jesus maybe. Jesus’ follower did not worry about money, career, family etc. Remember before 70AD Christians stayed in Synagogue, so they must have followed the law. And remember what James did in Jerusalem? He went to the Temple and followed the law. God-Jesus believers would not be able to enter the Temple.

            “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?”
            No I don’t. Provide some evidence about that kingdom. No democracy eh? Dictatorship better? Really?

            “the sexually immoral”
            Bible believer have all kinds of hangups about sexuality…

          • Jon

            You clearly have a fair measure of biblical awareness, though it appears you reject its message… perhaps lifestyle choices mean you must. The early church did not always meet in synagogues; they met in houses.

            There was clearly a transition stage as Jewish believers learned how the law was fulfilled and superseded in Christ. There is, as I’m sure you know an initial fulfilment of ‘the law and the prophets’ in Christ and an ultimate fulfilment that lies in the future.

            Your argument is not with me but with Scripture. You may reject the biblical message, that is your prerogative. Just be honest with yourself about why you are doing so.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “perhaps lifestyle choices mean you must”
            Yes. I reject Christian morals. I don’t want to discriminate. We need a better moral system than what the Bible teaches.

            “The early church did not always meet in synagogues; they met in houses.”
            Yes, but after they were kicked out to Synagogues after Jewish war.

            “There was clearly a transition stage as Jewish believers learned how the law was fulfilled and superseded in Christ.”
            Yes, but note that people who worked and walked with Jesus followed the law. Only later Paulinist ideas got popular Christianity changed.

            “Your argument is not with me but with Scripture.”
            Typical cop out. The Bible incites violence and discrimination and you claimed that it does not. My argument was against your position, not the Bible.

  • One wonders what percentage of global hatred is inspired by religion. There’s Islam with its hatred of everything non-Muslim, Judaism with its ‘very deep hatred’ of Christianity, and Christianity itself with its schisms and sects. God knows, the other faiths won’t be any better. Religion: a blessing or a curse?

    • Agrigenti

      Both blessings and curses are religious concepts. If religions have no basis, the terms spawned by them must be essentially meaningless.

      Perhaps your question should really be: “Religion: beneficial or harmful to mankind?”

      It may be a difficult question to answer.

      On the one hand, many religions do much practical good. They look after the disabled, the sick and the dying and help to alleviate much suffering in the world. They can give certain individuals who are incapable of distinguishing between their own opinion and impartial fact a sense of purpose and meaning. They may even serve to inspire groups or even entire populations towards common goals, although history shows us that this can cause as much harm as good, e.g. the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials.

      And this is the problem. Religion seems to cause as much if not more harm than good. It validates and justifies the persecution of groups or even entire populations. It stifles creative thinking and innovation. It can also dupe many into parting with their hard-earned money, time and other resources for empty promises of salvation and eternal paradise.

      Each individual will judge whether, on balance, religion is beneficial or harmful to man. My own opinion is that, although back in our primitive past it may have been of net benefit, we have now outgrown it and it serves mainly as a brake or an obstacle to our further development.

      • @ Agrigenti—Christianity became an impediment to the West when the churches fell in love with diversity of race and religion, and preached that to oppose diversity was racist and sinful. Pre-war Christianity contributed to the stability of what was then a true nation but post-war Christianity, in welcoming Islam, is helping to destroy both Britain and itself.

        • Agrigenti

          It depends on how you define a nation. If it means a group of people who all think and act the same then yes, modern Christian liberalism is certainly helping to destroy that idea. Which is no bad thing, as far as I can see.

          Look around you. Nature abhors a monoculture. When left to its own devices, a field will produce a variety of seed. Only when man intervenes to rip out everything except the one grain he wants will that variety flourish to the exclusion of all others.

          If you can live on a steady and unchanging diet of that particular grain then you’ll fine, won’t you? But if you’re allergic to it, or your body needs other nutrients as well, then you’ll just have to starve.

          Away with your boring monoculture. Variety is the spice of life.

      • What do you feel about the opposition of some religions to homosexuality?

        • The Explorer

          There’s a question for winkling out a lurking Linus! But he may be holding himself back in the hope of deceiving those like Carl who want to give him the benefit of the doubt.

          • Yes, Jack likes to adopt the subtle approach.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Clunk….that was me falling off my chair !

        • Agrigenti

          The opposition of some religions to homosexuality is rooted in divine prohibitions that only have meaning if there’s a real god to enforce them.

          Show me proof of a god, and proof that the Bible is his word, and then I’ll have to take Christian attitudes towards homosexuality seriously.

          Until then, they’re just another set of prejudiced beliefs held by people who can offer no solid evidence to back them up. I might as well believe Jews and Muslims when they say that god has decreed pork to be unfit for human consumption. I don’t particularly like pork and almost never eat it, but I’m quite happy for others to do so if that’s what floats their boat. So why should I object to homosexuals sleeping with each other? One man’s meat is another man’s poison … or nectar. It depends on the man.

          • Still married, Linus?

          • Agrigenti

            Ah, I see. You think I’m someone else.

            You’ll have to ask questions destined for Linus to Linus. How can I answer for him?

          • CliveM

            Oh dear, Groundhog Day. You’re getting dreadfully repetitive Linus.

          • Agrigenti

            I see Christians really do suffer from collective delusions. This is very interesting to observe and confirms many of my suspicions about the kind of personality that falls for the religion.

          • Agrigenti

            See my reply to the person with the big round yellow face. I don’t know who “Linus” is, but he’s not me.

            Is he even a real person? Does anyone who posts from a viewpoint skeptical of Christianity immediately get referred to as “Linus” here? Or is it a pseudonym for the devil or some kind of unclean spirit who you believe must possess those who don’t believe in god?

            I’m familiar with the basics of Christian belief, but I’ve never heard of a character called “Linus” before. What’s his story and in which book of the bible does he appear?

          • CliveM

            Oh dear oh dear. The more tortuous the argument, the more you give yourself away.

            You’re kidding no one Linus.

          • Have your pants caught fire?

          • CliveM

            Strong sense of deja vu!

          • Agrigenti

            ???

          • Not British?

          • Are you saying you have never posted here as “Linus”?

          • Agrigenti

            I’m not saying anything, although you seem very keen to put words into my mouth. Why is that?

          • Let’s put it another way then.
            Have you ever posted here as “Linus”? A “yes” or a “no” will suffice.

          • Pubcrawler

            A single-word answer? From Linus? Ah, yes, I see…

          • Cressida de Nova

            Settle down Doddles…Remember they use to think I was one of your pseudonyms….you should be so lucky:)

          • Agrigenti

            No.

          • Just to be clear:

            Is the person behind the pseudonym Agrigenti the same person who was behind the pseudonym Linus?

          • Agrigenti

            There’s no-one behind my pseudonym. My computer screen faces into the room, so the only people who could be behind it are passers-by in the street. I just checked and the pavement in front of my house is devoid of foot traffic. There may be someone behind my pseudonym for a split second when a car goes by, or even several people if it’s a minivan or a bus. But for the moment there isn’t any vehicular traffic in sight. It’s one of the reasons I chose this house. The street is lovely and quiet.

            I wonder though, how far behind my pseudonym would you like me to go? At the moment my screen is tilted so that a straight line drawn from the back of it intersects the road surface, beyond which I cannot see. If I were to follow the path of the line until it surfaced somewhere in the middle of the ocean, or possibly on another continent, it might intersect someone. This is however not something I can ascertain from my present vantage point,

            If I tilt my screen to nearly vertical, then a straight line emanating from the back of it would go across the street and through the park on the other side. I can see a few people strolling about there. But none of them seem to be directly behind my pseudonym. If I keep going, I come to a wooded area where there could of course be somebody lurking in the trees. I rather hope not, as I’m told it’s a favorite haunt of local doggers and I don’t really like the idea of some sweaty couple engaged in a steamy clinch in the bushes being behind my pseudonym – I fear they might lower its tone.

            Moving swiftly on however, if the wood is deserted and the line continues unimpeded by sundry dog walkers, joggers, tree huggers and squirrels, then once it comes out the other side of the wood, and bearing in mind the curvature of the earth and the position of international air traffic corridors at this time of year, the only other people who could reasonably be in its firing line would be on board a plane or a hot air ballon somewhere over the ocean. Or perhaps (orbits allowing) in the International Space Station, and then only for microseconds as they whizz past at breakneck speed.

            Beyond that there may be assorted alien life-forms, if such things exist, behind my pseudonym. But again, the combined speed of the earth’s rotation plus that of whichever celestial body they happen to be on must surely mean they won’t be there for long.

            So if I say there’s nobody behind my pseudonym, I will be giving the nearest approximation of the truth possible given my inability to see further than the line of trees on the other side of the park.

            Will that do?

            As for what’s currently behind “Linus”‘s pseudonym, I’m afraid you’ll have to ask him. How should I know?

          • *sigh*

            Is the person behind currently using the pseudonym Agrigenti the same person who was behind using the pseudonym Linus?

            In less than 500 words please.

          • Agrigenti

            Using the respective pseudonyms for what?

            Short enough for you?

          • *sigh*

            Is the person currently using the name “Agrigenti” for posting comments on Archbishop Cranmer’s blog, the same person who once used the pseudonym “Linus”?

          • Agrigenti

            “… the same person who once used the pseudonym “Linus”?”

            I have never called myself “Linus”. I have never posted comments on any blog, let alone this one, using that pseudonym.

            Clear enough for you?

          • Do calm down. Anyone would think you were French. Speaking of which, one notes they will be hosting the next Gay Olympics. Ever been to France?

          • carl jacobs

            Nicely done, Jack.

          • Jack has a little experience in this area and learnt from the best.

            “So answer this question directly and honestly, or leave and never return:

            Is the person behind the pseudonym Happy Jack the same person who was/is behind the pseudonym Dodo?”
            (His Grace: 4 April 2014 at 16:16)

            Still suffering from PTSS over this!

          • Cressida de Nova

            ..pot kettle
            PTSS..yeah sure LOL

    • Albert

      I think the 20th Century more than answers your question.

  • Ivan M

    The banner looks Photoshopped, Something is not right with the kid’s hands. Neither can he have balanced that cardboard with ease.

  • Dreadnaught

    Radio 4 is broadcasting two programmes on the Shia-Sunni squabble. If when listening to it as I did you will realise that us calling for World Peace is simply whistling down the wind. Islam is such a fraudulent, blood-thirsty concept its only that with today’s sensitivities towards minority accommodations of faith equality that such deceit gets a free pass in the West.
    We and our politicians are ignorant of its history and ambitions.
    Informing us of being conceived in originally uniting waring Arab tribes, the dialogue conveniently skips over what was actually involved in its rapid expansion – to any other lands and people that took their fancy.
    Nowhere was it invited in. It makes Hitler’s invasion execises in Europe look positively lame.
    Its still worth listening to even if it is for what it [the programme] leaves out; better than nothing and a revelation for some I suspect.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07vngrr

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      ‘Nowhere was it invited in…’ until Frau Merkel that is

      • Dreadnaught

        Who invited the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis into the UK long before the Turks settled in Germany or the current tide of vandals – the British Left did,

  • Inspector General

    ”What’s the point, exactly?”.

    I say! Good man, Cranmer! Glad to see the futility of it all is beginning to get home to you.

    Islamic wretches out in the Middle East always find time after a good days killing to go about seeding their next generation. And there he is in the picture. Already ruined for life. He was ruined shortly after he learnt to walk, don’t you know. What is rather unfortunate is that he didn’t have any say as to his lot. Nothing. In fact, he came from nothing and here he is now in all his sadness. He didn’t have to work on his hate. He was given that gratis from his family and mosque.

    The poor little blighter can’t even find the peace of Christ and reject Allah, even if he could on his own, and continue to live. He would be dead meat. His loving own would see to that.

    What is the damn point of even concerning ourselves with them. And what is the point of letting them into Europe or are we that eager to allow these natural born killers to wreak their mayhem here…

    • Dominic Stockford

      He may not be able to find the peace of Christ, but the peace of Christ CAN find him.

      There are surprising numbers of converts to Christianity in the Middle East at the moment.
      John 14 – “Trust in God, and trust also in me.” said Jesus.

      • David

        Indeed. Open Doors is reporting many conversions. It is just the one organisation that I am kept informed about, and there will be others I am sure.

    • A Christian cannot be indifferent to human suffering no matter where it is or who it involves.

  • len

    ‘World Peace Day’ would be laughable if it were not so tragic. There seem to be wars or the potential of wars breaking out all over Earth.
    Anti Semitism is just as bad as it ever was( even in parts of the Church) and certainly in some political parties.
    Technology has evolved in leaps and bounds in the last hundred years or so but man remains as fallen as he ever was.Man cannot change himself that is a fact. Despite ‘liberating himself’, throwing of the shackles of Christianity, man cannot even work out a fair and just political/religious system which encompasses all.
    All man made religious /political systems are bound to fail as they have done(at such a cost) in the past.
    All this chaos will eventually have to be’ wound up’ before man destroys himself and the planet ,
    man needs God if he would but admit it but pride and rebellion as always stand in the way.

    • Dominic Stockford

      That Methodist church in London has done nothing for the cause of Christianity with its appalling presentation of anti-Semitic tropes.

  • Royinsouthwest

    ZX10 claimed that the photo is genuine and that it was taken rally organized by the Islamic Human Rights Commission in Trafalgar Square, August 2011. If so that is utterly disgraceful. Was the adult, or adults, who got the child to carry the banner arrested? If not, that is even more disgraceful.

    Suppose someone were to walk down a street in a British town carrying a banner saying For World Peace Islam Must Be Destroyed does anyone imagine that the police would not arrest that person, or, if it were a child, arrest the adults involved? Those adults would surely be put on trial for hate speech. Of course if the poster called for Christianity to be destroyed the police would probably show as little interest as they did in the case of the poster shown in the photograph above.

  • Yesterday was “World Day of Prayer for Peace”. Leaders and representatives of several religions, including Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, joined Pope Francis in Assisi. This year, Christians prayed in the Basilica of St Francis, while those from other religions prayed in the town. All participants then met in Assisi’s main square for speeches by the Pope, Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I, and a representative from Islam, Judaism and Buddhism.

    According to Pope Francis, indifference is the greatest sickness of our time, “It is a virus that paralyzes, rendering us lethargic and insensitive, a disease that eats away at the very heart of religious fervour, giving rise to a new and deeply sad paganism: the paganism of indifference … We cannot remain indifferent. Today the world has a profound thirst for peace.”

    “Prayer and the desire to work together are directed towards a true peace that is not illusory: not the calm of one who avoids difficulties and turns away, if his personal interests are not at risk.”
    Peace “is not the cynicism of one who washes his hands of any problem that is not his,” Francis continued. “It is not the virtual approach of one who judges everything and everyone using a computer keyboard, without opening his eyes to the needs of his brothers and sisters. Above all, peace is a gift of God … it is only with his help that our works can bear fruit …. working together for peace is not merely a physical movement, but most of all a spiritual movement – a spiritual response – of becoming more open to God and to our fellow brothers and sisters.

    “In Lesbos, my dear brother, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, and I saw the sorrow of war in the eyes of the refugees, the anguish of peoples thirsting for peace. I am thinking of the families, whose lives have been shattered; of the children who have known only violence in their lives; of the elderly, forced to leave their homeland …

    “We do not want these tragedies to be forgotten. Rather together we want to give voice to all those who suffer, to all those who have no voice and are not heard. They know well, often better than the powerful, that there is no tomorrow in war, and that the violence of weapons destroys the joy of life.”

    Speaking out against religious fundamentalism, the Pope said, “peace alone, and not war, is holy … We never tire of repeating that the name of God cannot be used to justify violence. Peace, a thread of hope that unites earth to heaven, a word so simple and difficult at the same time … Peace means forgiveness, openness to dialogue, cooperation, and education … Prayer and concrete acts of cooperation help us to break free from the logic of conflict and to reject the rebellious attitudes of those who know only how to protest and be angry.”

    Our path toward peace “leads us to immersing ourselves in situations and giving first place to those who suffer. To taking on conflicts and healing them from within; to following ways of goodness with consistency, rejecting the shortcuts offered by evil; to patiently engaging processes of peace, in good will and with God’s help.”

    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/in-assisi-pope-francis-slams-paganism-of-indifference-48548/

  • Martin

    Couldn’t agree more, would someone tell Justin Welby.

  • ‘And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.’

    I take it this found its initial fulfilment when the disciples were sent out into all the world to preach the gospel taking the gospel from Jerusalem to Samaria and then the ends of the earth. Its final and full fulfilment being realised in the heavenly city, the new Jerusalem when the first heavens and earth has passed away.

    • … and how does that truth lead to or promote earthly peace and justice whilst we wait for the end of this age ad the return of Christ?

      • It doesn’t. But it should make us realistic about the possibilities of peace. We (Christians) will seek to be peacemakers in the spheres of our influence but know our success rate is doomed to be marginal and short lived. It seems that the very mechanisms set up to enable peace in time are catalysts to its destruction.

        Further, the truth leads us to put less energy into promoting short term illusory peace and more into preaching the gospel which will result in real and lasting peace.

        • In seeking peace we are promoting the Gospel.

          • Anton

            But not “peace, when there is no peace” like Chamberlain.

          • The Munich agreement, signed by Britain, Germany, France and Italy was an inherently immoral act.

          • carl jacobs

            It was Inherently short-sighted and foolish and dangerous and gutless. But somehow I don’t think that is what you mean by “immoral”. Care to expand?

          • They carved up the territory of a peaceful, independent state, without its leaders being present, to pacify Hitler’s expansionism and in so doing reneged on previous treaties. An immoral Realpolitik act, even if it had worked.

          • carl jacobs

            The US currently has an Article 5 guarantee with Lithuania. Tell me. Should the US risk a nuclear war with Russia over Lithuania simply for the sake of that treaty?

          • Then why have the treaty if you don’t intend to honour your word? It would depend on circumstances, of course, but you shouldn’t give Lithuania to Russia in the hope it might satisfy her appetite.

          • carl jacobs

            Then why have the treaty if you don’t intend to honour your word?

            Good question. Make me Emperor and I would revoke it yesterday. But that is neither here nor there. The fact is that it exists.

            It would depend on circumstances, of course

            Oh, so a country can violate a treaty should its own interests so dictate depending upon context. It wouldn’t be an “inherently immoral act” then. You should play Goalie for Man U. Own goals come naturally to you. 😀

            you shouldn’t give Lithuania to Russia in the hope it might satisfy her appetite.

            No, you should accept the fact that Lithuania is in the Russian sphere of influence, that Russia has vital security interests in Lithuania, and that the US has no interest in Lithuania that is worth a war. Especially a nuclear war.

            You know. It’s all that Realpolitik stuff that you don’t like so much.

          • The circumstances would be meeting the demands of a Just War, not self interest.

            – the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
            – all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
            – there must be serious prospects of success;
            – the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated (the power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition).

            If you want to accept that position about Lithuania, then there shouldn’t be a treaty. It’s just a dishonest bluff and, in the long run, will expose you as untrustworthy and weak. Not good for Realpolitik either.

          • carl jacobs

            Oh, I’ll stipulate any Just War criteria you would like to specify. What context would ever justify the US risking a nuclear war with Russia over Lithuania?

            then there shouldn’t be a treaty.

            You are correct. But the treaty exists. Are you saying the US should risk a nuclear war over Lithuania simply for the sake of that treaty guarantee?

          • Rule and Raven

            Subject to Just War criteria, yes.

            What context would ever justify a war between nuclear superpowers determined to use those weapons? So Russia, China and the USA should just let one another trample around the world doing as they please, regardless of treaties, unless it conflicts with their direct self interest?

          • Subject to Just War criteria, yes.

            What context would ever justify a war between nuclear superpowers determined to use those weapons? So Russia, China and the USA should just let one another trample around the world doing as they please, regardless of treaties, unless it conflicts with their direct self interest?
            (You didn’t see the earlier comment)

          • carl jacobs

            So Russia, China and the USA should just let one another trample around the world doing as they please, regardless of treaties, unless it conflicts with their direct self interest?

            Yes, pretty much that’s the beginning and the end of it. That’s how the world works.

            Your answer is consistent, but not credible. It’s the kind of answer one would give in an academic setting in order to avoid having his whole position undermined. But it is not an answer that could or would be carried forward into the real world.

          • You mean a corrupt world where nations act without moral principle. As Christians, we’re to bring light into darkness.

          • Anton

            Carl, without getting into your spat with Jack you should check the history of Lithuania. Eastern Ukraine it isn’t.

          • big

            The USA has,and does go around trampling on people,the UK and France have helped them in recent years…..Libya is a good example.As for the Baltic states…..i think some kind of fait accompli would be presented to the Russians forcing them to react,which would rapidly reach a point of no return,all out Thermo nuclear war would follow,with the almost certain destruction of the Western world,including Russia……just war, no, more like a mass suicide pact brought down on the world by psychopaths

          • Ivan M

            Factions consisting of psychos of varying belligerence and self-delusions seem to be running the US these days. The Russians are paragons of rectitude by comparison. Whatever the US stood for at one time , it is the major cause of unending chaos today.

          • big

            Agreed,although it’s not clear if America ever stood for anything less,have you read Murray Rothbard,s Monograph Wall Street,Banks, And American Foreign Policy.?

          • Ivan M

            No I. have not read it. I will say this though, Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, the deep state have been around since the founding of the US but there were always men of morals and probity to keep abuses in check. Nowadays it appears that the lunatics are in charge.

          • big

            God help us if we get Clinton.

          • Ivan M

            Exactly. Some chin-pullers and eyebrow-twisters though are having a hard time making up their minds about Trump. Clinton is a few stairs away from another seizure , making her the ideal candidate for the men behind the curtain. This is apart from her own corruption and nihilism.

          • Anton

            Rothbard is a class act. Antony Sutton has done the same at greater length and is also a genuine scholar rather than a wild conspiratorialist.

          • Anton

            Perhaps, but it can change its government. Which of the two places would you prefer to live in?

          • CliveM

            Quite.

          • Ivan M

            You are an old man aren’t you? Stop playing childish games of deflection. How many Russians do you think want to live in the UK or the US? Each will love his own country. I prefer to live in India if I had the money to retire.

          • Ivan M

            I apologise for my snarky tone below, Anton. Lack of sleep. Very sorry.

          • big

            No!!!!!!

          • Need to enlarge on this a bit HJ.

          • See my post below on Pope Francis’ recent words at Assisi.

          • Anton

            Say rather that in promoting the gospel we are seeking peace.

  • Needs to have universal acceptance so one must include all non-binary options.

    • CliveM

      I’m willing not to be universally accepted if that’s the choice.

  • “Doesn’t world peace rather depend on a common notion justice? Isn’t common justice contingent on a universal apprehension of righteousness? Where’s that going to come from if not Zion? Who will unite the people if not the Messiah? Should not a World Day of Righteousness precede a World Day of Peace?”

    Ultimately it can only come when Christ returns. Meanwhile, it’s our Christian duty to work and pray for peace between the different nations and faiths of the world. A common justice can be built up around empathy and understanding for the victims of war and a recognition of the greed and self interest that divides and causes conflict. Ask who benefits from war and then who suffers?

  • If peace is the absence of war and conflict, there will never be a World Peace Day until the Prince of Peace reigns, the law is perfect, and the government is upon his shoulder.

    Exactly so. These ‘leaders and representatives of several religions’ are whistling in the dark. First of all, God will not answer the prayers of such a Babel of false and deluded faiths. Secondly, ‘”There is no peace,” says my God, “For the wicked”‘ (Isaiah 57:21). To ask God for peace while millions of unborn children are slaughtered in the womb every year is blasphemy
    .
    Yet there is a peace that is something more than the mere absence of war. It is the peace that passes understanding, the peace that comes from trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation, so that whatever may befall, not one hair from your head will perish (Luke 21:16-19).
    .
    “Peace I leave with you. My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid” (John 14:27).

    • David

      Amen to that !

  • Ah shucks, Carl. Serial killers are a rare breed too.

  • Mike Stallard

    I have been reading the last Surats of the Koran for a couple of weeks (in English!)
    They are full of fear, revenge, worry and under that a trust in Al-Lah.
    When I compare them with the Christian teachings of St Paul, or indeed the Gospels, I am immediately struck by the lack of love and understanding in the Koran, which I must say, I have often found among Muslims of my own acquaintance.
    The UN might want world peace. But as you say, it is powerless to achieve it.

    • Anton

      You do know that the Quran is not collected in chronological order, but order of length of the suras? You can read four (in some places, five) English translations at once, here:

      http://prophetofdoom.net/Qurans.Islam

      • dannybhoy

        The original quran was destroyed..
        http://www.harvardhouse.com/quran_purity.htm

        • Anton

          I’m sorry Danny but there is a huge amount of conjecture stated as fact in that article. It is written by somebody with an agenda who has promoted certain ancient Islamic sources and demoted others without saying so. The hadiths – traditions about Muhammad – were first written down one or two lifetimes after Muhammad, and the fact that they include isnads (chains of transmission) does not necessarily mean that they are authentic. Various parties were jockeying to be seen as the true successors to Muhammad and so take control of the powerful movement he started, and these parties were perfectly capable of distorting an oral tradition to their own ends. A small number of Western scholars are now starting to look at the oldest material and find out what can *reliably* be deduced. A summary of their work up to a few years ago can be found in Robert Spencer’s (overly-provocatively titled) book “Did Muhammad exist?” But not many people are prepared to work in this field, as they are liable to be murdered if they question the Islamic account of what happened, or even raise the inconsistencies therein. Renan’s famous assertion that, unlike Christianity and other religions, “Islam was born… in the full light of history” is nonsense. There is little doubt that variant Qurans were circulating, but what happened and why is in darkness and the evidence is so sparse as to admit a variety of possibilities.

          • Mike Stallard

            I am a Catholic myself, but I do want to stand up for the Koran and indeed the hadiths!
            The Caliphs were very careful to preserve what they saw as the authentic words of the Angel Gabriel to the Prophet – their Messenger. In a time when writing was under suspicion, people, being illiterate like the Prophet himself, had to be very good at remembering things.
            By going round and collecting these words, learned by heart, and laying them out for comparison, with the provenance, they probably got very near the true words and stories.
            The Caliphs burned MSs which did not fit their own careful collection of the Koran.

          • Anton

            You are accepting one interpretation of the evidence we have today. Please be careful, and read what scholars are finding out today before dismissing them. Quranic inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock, for example, are from the era of the first caliphs and differ markedly from today’s Quran.

          • Mike Stallard

            I have touched on these in my reading round the subject. But I have not investigated them. They are, to my mind terribly threatening to Islam. If the Word of God (literally) is unclear, then what does the religion rest on? And, I am afraid, for me the Koran is in no way the Word of God! As I say, I am a Catholic.

            I am onto a different line. I have Muslims in my family, you see and it is so easy to rubbish them. The behaviour of Arab men in Singapore and Bangkok is, let us just say, fairly Western. I have sat at the same (long) table in Dubai with a man in Dish-dasha and gingham headdress who was quite obviously chatting up a lady who was not his wife. I could go on. And on…
            But they do not eat swine! Or gamble (at all)! Or drink alcohol made from the grape!
            What I am trying to do is to understand what it is like to be a Muslim from inside. That fascinates me. I can feel the presence of the Lord God sometimes. The light really does shine through the darkness and that I find exhilarating.
            But underneath, I realise that it is an alien part of the Abrahamic legacy.

          • Anton

            “What I am trying to do is to understand what it is like to be a Muslim from inside.”

            Then talk to converts from Islam to Christianity!

          • Mike Stallard

            Whenever I have had the chance, indeed I have. But, since the death sentence is imposed on such people (shirk), I have not found that many. Better far are the Muslim websites.

          • Anton

            They’re not hard to find in the UK, but they don’t advertise their presence.

          • dannybhoy

            Really it doesn’t matter anyway.
            Jesus said, “By their fruits ye shall know them”
            What are the fruits of Islam?
            Death, Subjugation,Abuse, Violence, Backwardness, Darkness, Incoherence of thought and more violence of you dare criticise it..
            So it really doesn’t matter what it says, only what it produces.

      • Mike Stallard

        Anton – thank you very much for that reference which I have bookmarked.

    • David

      Yes. For some time I accepted all the fashionable “Abrahamic faiths” stuff about the three faiths being close cousins. Then ten years ago I forced myself to read that strange book the Koran. I was horrified. Unlike the war scenes in parts of the OT, that describe violent warfare, as history, but with no exhortations to do likewise, I found the Koran to be as you described, and much worse. It is a supremacists theology. After reading it, I thought, well at least I know now where I stand !
      The rose tinted glasses that I had been wearing, which are freely distributed by liberals of all stripes, were then brutally snatched away from me by its stark messages. Since then, over the last decade many people seem to have trod a similar path to me, and few now, outside the hopelessly uber-liberal are falling for the story.

  • len

    Interesting that all those who have attempted to destroy Israel in the past have ended up getting destroyed themselves.Even more so in these last days when the armies of anti Christ will seek to totally ‘wipe Israel off the map’.
    “Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.”

    “And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.”

    (Zechariah Chapter 12 written approximately 2500 years ago)

    • Royinsouthwest

      The Romans destroyed Israel in AD 135. The Eastern Roman Empire lasted for more than another millennium until its fall in 1453.

      • len

        Where is the Roman Empire now?.

        • Royinsouthwest

          Unlike Italy in WW2 the Roman Empire had soldiers from all over the place, including some from outside the empire. Like Israel the Roman Empire has been revived. Britain voted to leave it just a few months ago!

          As for the Balfour Declaration we did give the Jews a homeland. Do you really think we would still be ruling India and numerous other countries today if we had given the Jews everything they asked for and had simply run roughshod over Arab objections?

          • len

            ‘The revived Roman Empire’ will not just be Europe!.The Roman Capital was moved by Constantine to Turkey. ‘ Constantinople’ was the capital city of the Roman/Byzantine Empire. When Turkey joins the EU then you can really say the Roman Empire has revived!.

            In 1939, Great Britain reneged on the Balfour Declaration by issuing the White Paper, which stated that creating a Jewish state was no longer a British policy. It was also Great Britain’s change in policy toward Palestine, especially the White Paper, that prevented millions of European Jews to escape from Nazi-occupied Europe to Palestine’ . http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=79129.0;wap

            Not sure we would be’ ruling India’ today but the lesson to be learned(or not) is that God still blesses those who bless Israel and will deal with those who oppose the Jewish people and God’s purposes for them.

          • Royinsouthwest

            Your reply totally ignores the rights of the Arabs. The article below has some interesting maps showing the Palestinian loss of land from 1946 to 2014.

            A senior Israeli leader discusses a final solution for Palestine
            https://fabiusmaximus.com/2016/09/23/ayelet-shaked-advocates-death-to-palestine-99233/

          • Pubcrawler
  • chefofsinners

    A large amount of what the UN does is a waste of time and money. With Russia now bombing aid convoys, and China supporting North Korea, it is losing any moral authority and blocking nations from acting for good.
    We’ve got Brexit. Will it be UNexit next?

    • Anton

      The UN’s administration depends on US largesse, which Trump would withdraw. Whether he’d quit the privileged five of its Security Council and leave the field to the Russians and Chinese is less clear.

      Just what is France doing as one of those five today, in view of its shameful performance in WW2?

      • carl jacobs

        Re: France. It was Churchill’s idea.

        • CliveM

          Dreadful old Francophile was Churchill.

          • IanCad

            I like the French.
            They are unreasonable, cantankerous, thoroughly unreliable; yet magnificent. Just the sort we need to put a spoke in the works.

          • Anton

            They first have to realise that the EU is no longer in their interests. It’s coming, but horribly slowly.

          • chefofsinners

            He may have spoke too soon.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Gros bisous !

      • Ivan M

        They won the war in terms of their war aims. The main one being the neutralisation of the Germans. Rather smart of the French. … for I have found that the race is not to the swiftest etc…

        • chefofsinners

          Neutralised the Germans? Not for long enough. All Europe hangs on Merkel’s words.

    • Ivan M

      The bloody US and their British, Oz and Danish poodles can kill eighty odd Syrian soldiers , in support of their buddies the ISIS, but that’s all fine and dandy.

      • chefofsinners

        Soldiers are killing and know they may be killed. Syrian soldiers are fighting for a regime that uses cluster bombs and chemical weapons on its own people.
        Aid workers are something else.

        • Ivan M

          It is to begin with their sovereign territory that they are defending. By what right are the Americans and their poodles operating in Syria? Have the Syrians attacked you or your interests? The Americans had close to 15 years to stabilise the situation. They’ve failed completely, and are now sponsoring offshoots of the al-Queda to overthrow the legitimate government. Very cynical of the swine considering that the alleged War on Terror was launched to defeat the al-Queda. They should get the hell out.

  • peter the painter

    Israel may not be justified in anything, but one is quite certain that peace will not come with the eradication of monotheism. Because there were epic conflicts before. Unless most people have forgotten Ancient Greece, Persia, Carthage and not to mention the aggressive, expansionist ‘rational’ Romans which the enlightenment so wanted a return of by way of the American revolution, French revolution and Napoleon.