re: Can we agree to stop with the religious persecution of other Christians?

I 100% did.

quote:

---

And we can stop right here because you still fail to understand that the definitions of these terms exist independent of Christianity. Prayer is the belief that ritualistic practice can lead unseen spiritual forces to influence the physical world. It often includes spoken formulas, specific gestures, and intense focus.

This is the literal definition of magical practice. What Christianity says about it is entirely irrelevant. If it were a Haitian Voo Doo practitioner doing the exact same shite you would rightly call it magical practice.

---

Your ignorance is astounding and you continue to double down on this.

The heart of the difference between prayer and "magic" is the personal and relational aspect of prayer.

Prayer is communication with a personal God, asking for what we desire in a worshipful posture towards our spiritual Father.

Magic is mechanical and impersonal, and coercive at its core. It's like Harry Potter and how if you just say the right words in the right way, you will make something happen. Prayer is not that way at all.

Magic manipulates an impersonal force through technique and ritual while prayer speaks to and submits desires to a sovereign and personal being (God).

It's very different.

Can't say that without also saying millions have been murdered in the name of religion as well.

Foo is one of these "apologists" who believes it's ok to be dishonest in the name of God. He does it constantly. Watch, next he will try to say that when Christians recite prescribed words verbatim during prayer that it is somehow different than what he defined magic to he as, "saying the right words in the right sequence" even though they are exactly the same frickin thing.

Cletus multiple posting the same shite

fricking meth head.

quote:

---

You are treating atheism like it is a complete political ideology. It is not.

---

No, I'm treating it like a philosophical worldview, equivalent with a religious worldview like Christianity, but without the rational weight behind it.

Atheism can be applied to politics just like religion can be, since it is a worldview that touches on all elements of life and how we live.

quote:

---

Atheism does not require communism, gulags, censorship, purges, invasions, or state coercion. Those things came from authoritarian communism and totalitarian power, not from the mere absence of belief in God.

---

I agree that atheism does not necessitate communism, but atheistic communism will naturally result in the atrocities we saw throughout the world in communistic countries because, as a political ideology, it is not self-sustaining due to the conflict it has with human nature. You have to use force to sustain it.

I'm talking about atheistic communism in particular because that was the basis of John Lennon's lyric, which you referenced, so I'm talking about both atheism and communism separately and together.

quote:

---

And if Christians get to say, “Christian atrocities are people failing to live up to Christianity,” then atheists get to say, “Soviet atrocities are people abusing authoritarian ideology and state power.” You do not get to separate Christianity from its worst actors while stapling atheism to its worst regimes.

---

I'm not doing that at all. I'm judging the "atrocity" by the standard. Christianity teaches against murder and abusive authority because all people are made in the image of God with inherent value, and all people ultimately belong to God, so we do not have the authority to treat humans however we want without warrant from God, Himself.

Soviet atrocities were done in the name of the greater good based on the subjective beliefs of those in power. Since there is no objective moral standards to adhere to in atheism, there is no violation of any objective standard when abuses occur. In fact, there cannot be such a thing as an objective "abuse" without an objective standard for what constitutes an "abuse". Christianity has one (or at least the possibility of one) while atheism doesn't.

quote:

---

As for morality, saying “my morality comes from God” does not automatically prove your morality is objective. Every religion claims divine authority, and they disagree with each other. Even Christians disagree with other Christians on slavery, war, capital punishment, women’s rights, LGBTQ issues, divorce, church authority, and government power. So you still have interpretation, tradition, culture, and human judgment involved.

---

You're confusing the standard with its application. If you can point to an abuse of the standard, that's because the standard is clear enough to utilize for right and wrong application. Yes, there can be differences in interpretation that exist, but that doesn't mean those differences are equally valid. In atheism, on the other hand, the very standard of morality used is subjective with absolutely no grounding in objective reality, so all applications can be equally good or bad. It's entirely based on the subjective experience of the one or ones who are enforcing it, and it can change as the experiences and preferences change of those in power, and there is no outside source or standard to judge those experiences by.

quote:

---

Atheists can condemn atrocities because suffering, cruelty, oppression, torture, murder, and slavery are real harms to conscious beings. Human well-being is not meaningless just because you do not believe the universe has a divine courtroom attached to it.

---

You are incorrectly smuggling in an objective standard that doesn't exist, namely human well-being. You assume that human well-being and flourishing are objectively good while human suffering is objectively bad, but my point is that atheism cannot justify that claim.

If we are random accidents of mutation in a pitiless and indifferent universe, then why is it objectively bad for me to steal, rape, and kill other humans? If we are just featherless bipeds as Diogenes once quipped, then we have no intrinsic moral value and no intrinsic rights to violate, which means there is no intrinsic moral "ought's" that apply to us differently than to a lion attacking a gazelle, or one dog forcing copulation upon another.

As I said, all standards of morality boil down to personal preferences in atheism, where the one who wants to kill himself is no more immoral than the one who wants to live, and the one who wants to rape as many people as possible is no more immoral than the one who remains celibate.

quote:

---

If the only thing making morality real is the threat of punishment after death, then that is not moral superiority. That is fear-based obedience.

---

Who is to say that's the only reason to obey God? I certainly didn't. Christians naturally want to obey God out of thankfulness for His mercy to them, and out of duty owed to the God of the universe who is worthy of it.

However, that doesn't preclude the real motivation of obedience out of fear of punishment that should exist for those outside of faith in Jesus Christ. Just as citizens of the U.S. who are restrained from murdering an obnoxious stranger due to fear of getting caught and going to jail do so out of fear, it doesn't mean that restraint is bad because of that reasoning. Likewise, restraint from sin/immorality due to fear of God's justice is not a bad thing. It's an extra check on social morality, though, which doesn't exist in atheism.

quote:

---

So no, atheism does not equal communism

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

and Christianity does not get automatic ownership of morality.

---

I disagree. I believe Christianity alone has the rational basis for "owning" morality. Atheism certainly doesn't have one. Atheism only has subjective opinions and preferences, and that by necessity.

quote:

---

The test is not who claims the highest source. The test is how people treat actual human beings when they have power.

---

Again, I disagree. You can certainly test consistency to a moral standard by such a test, but you can't test "ownership of morality", because morality is an ethical standard, and we need to test the basis for each standard we have.

quote:

---

Ever read through the exorcism rites? They're exactly the same thing. How about the prayers that are recited word for word? There is nothing personal about saying the Lord's Prayer for the 1,000th time. It is...you guessed it, mechanical.

---

I actually agree with you that those who pray "mechanically" are not doing as Christ commanded. It's why the Westminster Confession of Faith, which I believe faithfully summarizes the truths of the Bible, states that prayer should not be mechanical and repetitive, or what it describes as "vain repetitions".

Also, you don't need to use Catholicism to argue against what I'm saying. I fundamentally disagree with Catholic teaching on prayer in several aspects, including prayer for and to the dead (living in Heaven), as well as their view of the rosary and other "vain repetitions".

That doesn't refute my point, though. Magic is by definition impersonal, while prayer is personal to a personal God who will act according to His will, not ours. Magic is about us forcing change through our actions or words, while prayer is about asking God for what we want and submitting to Him to grant it according to His will.

quote:

---

And here you say it yourself. It is the belief that ritualistic words and actions can move unseen spiritual forces to act upon the physical world.

---

There's a big difference between a personal and relational asking of God to grant our petitions and a mechanical incantation that will do what we want. The relational aspect is precisely the point and is at the heart of the difference. Prayer is not mechanically forcing God to do something, but asking Him as our Father (a relationship) to hear us and give us the desires of our hearts.

Another aspect to it is that Christians are to believe that God is wiser than we are and knows what we need better than we do, so while we ask for things from Him, we are to submit to His will. That is the opposite of what happens in "magic".

quote:

---

My ignorance?

---

Yes, except you are less ignorant with each response, and may be moving into the realm of willful deception.

quote:

---

This your basic denial of a simple frickin fact. You confirm it with your own words but are too blind to see it.

---

You are either willfully blind or are being stubborn because you don't want to concede that you are wrong. I explained to you clearly the difference between a mechanical coercion of a force through magic and the relational interaction with a personal being in prayer. You're trying to twist my words to mean what you want them to mean in order to win an argument, but you just can't do it because reality isn't on your side.

quote:

---

Saying that it is a "personal" thing doesn't change what it is.

---

Absolutely it does. It's the difference between typing a command on a keyboard and having your computer respond in a predictable and pre-programmed way, and talking to your friend or parent.

quote:

---

Newsflash for ya, genius, magical practitioners also believe that their God is a being that can act with them in a personal way. That is precisely why they appeal to said divine forces.

---

...in a way meant to compel said being or force. There's a difference between compulsion and supplication. Christian prayer is not for compelling God to do something, but to ask Him to do something. Magic is intended to compel some force or being to do something due to the mechanical nature of the rite or ritual. If I wave my wand around and say the magic words, a response will happen, versus crying out to God and asking Him for what we want, and trusting that He will give us what is best for us.

quote:

---

The only one here who is ignorant is you and anyone else who doesn't recognize prayer as an attempt at magic. These are simple facts.

---

You continue to misunderstand what "magic" is and what prayer is and does. Hopefully it's more clear to you now.

quote:

---

Foo is one of these "apologists" who believes it's ok to be dishonest in the name of God.

---

I do not. I believe the 9th commandment compels us to be honest.

quote:

---

I also hope we can start to unify to defend the tragic destruction of Christian enclaves and Christians at large in the holy lands.

---

Why the focus there? What about the Armenians and Nigerians?