So, wiki says they're convicted terroristic mass kidnapping murderers of children dressed up as a Chinese Christian group...and the disguise seems to work as often as not. To me, that says as much about mainstream Christianity as it does about this apparent cult.

I think this music video is an example of "flirty fishing".
Wiki-Christian groups also regard the group as a heretical sect that deserves the label "evil cult" due to the radical differences that separate Eastern Lightning teaching from orthodox Christian doctrine.[7] The group seems to stray from the second Christian doctrine of neighbourly love. The group also uses flirty fishing to attract potential converts.

@harlequinn

Yeeeaaaaaah...

Judging by the incoherent rambling of that last post, it looks like I struck a nerve. I mean, come on man. You claim you can't remember everything you read, but in this case you somehow didn't remember that the Christian god is omnipotent--a fundamental doctrine of every major denomination of Christianity in existence today? That's seriously your defense?

Quit your bullshit. You tried to shut down @newtboy and got yourself shut down instead. I'm sure that's frustrating and contributed to the nonsensical nature of that last post, but still....

To answer in all seriousness your subsequent questions:

1) Yes, atheism has brought me immense peace. It felt great to let go of religion--Christianity specifically--especially all the guilt-tripping and fire-and-brimstone bullshit that went along with it. As a side bonus, I felt relieved that I was no longer financially subsidizing a bunch of pedophiles (I left long before the major scandals broke in mainstream media).

2) No, I'm not angry but I am certainly annoyed at all the numb nuts who keep blowing themselves up, discriminating against the LGBT community, and trying to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies using only their Bronze Age (or older in the case of religions like Hinduism and Buddhism) superstitious beliefs as the rationale for their behavior.

3) No, I am not vegan. Just had fried chicken for dinner tonight.

4) Yes, I had to Google the exact passages but I knew the bible said somewhere that god was omnipotent because, as a former Christian, I'd read through it several times before. Sorry to hear you are so "forgetful" about the holy text that forms the backbone of your religion. Actually, I know you're not forgetful; the point the guy in the video is making is that most Christians choose not to look at the parts of the bible they don't like or even worse make ridiculous convoluted arguments to try to explain them away (as you tried to do here in explaining away god's omnipotence/omniscience).

Moving on, the "tenability" of Christianity has nothing to do with "Tradition." The whole thing is a house of cards. It doesn't matter in the slightest whether you want to interpret any holy text in the world literally or through some collective interpretation by an ostensibly educated priest-class. What makes all religion untenable is the fact that it is 100% made up bullshit. There is as much evidence for the existence of a Christian god as there is for Zeus, Thor, Santa Claus, or the tooth fairy (i.e. none).

Finally, no, I don't need to come up with a system to replace religion. It already exists and it is called "using reason and compassion." The idea itself that we need some system to control us or protect us from ourselves is archaic and frankly anachronistic in this day and age.

Now, I mean this in all seriousness--I wish you the best. I was you once, a long time ago, trying to stave off the cognitive dissonance of being a rationale human being yet also believing in a religion. I'd argue with atheists just like you're trying to do now. But the thing is... they made good arguments. The stuff they pointed out stuck with me. At first I'd shrug it off, but the facts nagged at me and nagged at me until I finally set out to prove those pesky atheists wrong--only to find out through research that everything they were saying was 100% correct.

Like I said in the previous post, you'll either face the facts or turn away and hide from them. I can't tell you if you'd be happier or not without religion--no one can. What I can tell you is that at the very least you would no longer be contributing to a collective hive-mind that has very real and very negative effects on the world we live in, regardless of whatever benefits the religion may bring to you personally. Either way, I sincerely wish you peace.

You might want to re-read your bible (I refuse to capitalize it).

Revelation 19:6:

And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

Also Matthew 19:26 “with God, all things are possible” and Luke 1:37 “with God nothing is impossible” make it clear the Christian god is omnipotent without actually using the word.

And even if it wasn't explicitly written, in practice every major sect of Christianity follows the doctrine that the Christian god is both omniscient (i.e. going to judge everyone for their sins on judgement day) and omnipotent (i.e. can do anything, such as create a universe from nothing).

EDIT: So @newtboy's original comment stands. The bible's inconsistencies are too huge for anyone not completely indoctrinated into Christianity to ignore.

I've gone to church for a few years. And I see no women staying silent, nor any man telling them to. I really don't care about "tradition" and would voice serious concern if these type of crap happens in the modern church. Believe me, my church sisters takes no crap from the brothers. And I don't really see much old-school practices except communion, and that's not far-out unacceptable a tradition considering its purpose.

I (or at least hope to) continuously carry a critical eye & mind on these social-issue things as in many others at the church. Church "doctrine/tradition" is no excuse to justify bad social/inequality/bigotry behavior. For me, discussion on why the heck Paul wrote these words is fine, it's good to find faults how those people who lived 2000 years ago and evolve the modern church practices to align better with Jesus' intention.
Overall, in my church, I think most people are pretty grounded in real-life struggles... but hey, I fully understand these are subjective opinions... we all have our blindspots. I think we're all better man/woman if we can take in criticisms.

I can't for the life of me understand the U.S. "Christian Right" (but I'm Canadian, so I'm just a passive observer, as I can't vote on US politics) nor, from my understanding of Him, Jesus (as a preacher of love & peace) could be a far/alt-right-winger. But oh, sorry, I don't mean to talk politics... just hope to convey from which side of the discussion I come from.

It's foolish (and arrogant) to take the Bible literally... so much contradictions, inconsistencies, if read this way. And really, I keep thinking - WHY LITERALLY? - I don't dare listen to my pastors and think their words MUST be what God/Jesus meant. Martin Luther's movement freed us from those chains of mindlessness from the church preachers' power over us.

Akways look to the intention of Jesus, which for me, is honestly good, relevant and much in demand, and do those as the Christian mission. The Bible can be confusing, but the message is crystal clear. And that's love & compassion towards our neighbors, go a preach THAT! Not hate/fear-filled "damn this, damn that"/"End of the World is nigh"-type rhetorics.

Seriously man, looking from a distance (again, Canadian here) those loud-voice Christian Rights in the States scare the hell out of me and most of my brothers & sisters, the general thought around me is that they've move way far out from the Christian's way that Jesus want us to be (that I know of)... makes me so sad.

Look north up here to Canada. Section 718.2(e) of our criminal code:
all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.

Call it my white male privilege but I don't accept the SJW definitions of racism and instead go by the dictionary definition:
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

That is to say, differential treatment based solely on race is racist. In Canada, we still have racist laws as part of our legal code. The fact it's purpose is try and help a minority doesn't change the fact it is still a racist law. Personally, I hold to this crazy notion that racism is still wrong. In theory this specific law was meant to offset the disproportionate imprisonment of aboriginal people in our justice system. In practice though, violent crimes are most often not random and are inflicted on people known to the assailant. So, in practice this has meant less prison time for aboriginal defenders, but it's also meant that aboriginal victims see their attackers typically getting lighter sentencing as well.

Racism is wrong, but you are mistaken to say that the far left doesn't itself indulge in it's own forms of racism. You don't have to google long to find far left SJW's declaring that only white people can be racist and only males can be sexist...

Here is the problem, Mr. Schlosser is a journalist, not a Nuclear Scientist. He does not understand, or has chosen to ignore for propaganda reasons, that an unarmed warhead is EXTREMELY unlikely to perform the exact sequence of events that need to take place to have a nuclear reaction happen.

Yes, he is fully correct in that we have had numerous 'butt-clenching' moments in which we could have started WW3 due to a malfunction or human error. But in the other cases he mentions, such as the bombs that landed on Spain, the lightning bolt on the tower, and the wrench on the rocket, the chance of the warhead going up while being unarmed is infinitesimal. They simply don't go 'boom' because of a collision or explosion. Now you could have a 'dirty bomb' type incident where the radioactive materials could be spread and come into contact with humans, but that is about it.

The cases that have been officially listed as Broken Arrows were because they involved an active bomb, like the one in Florida. Everything else he mentions in this video is his 'belief' and is conjecture.

Now, before I get unloaded on, I wish we didn't have nuclear weapons. I don't agree with Trump that we should renew the arms race, I think he is nuts since we have more than enough weapons to blanket the cities of the world more than a couple of times. If you add all the nukes from the Big 3 (USA/Russia/France...yes, France) there are enough to cover every single inch of the world.

The problem is, who bells the cat? If we give up all of our weapons, we are at risk. I wish we weren't, but we would be. If we bring down our numbers gradually, there are still other countries that may not, like North Korea. How do we trust the other country is actually following through? In a perfect world, we would all lay down our weapons and sing kumbaya, but as Heinlein wrote: "...Anyone who clings to the historically untrue and thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms."

PS...Yes, I know Starship Troopers is a controversial novel with overtones of Militarism and Fascism. However, there are quotes that ring true no matter what 'ism' people attach to the overall story. If you doubt that, look at the utter disbelief and depression that overcame liberals when Trump won. "He simply was supposed to, it was impossible, not like this, we have no hope, etc" were the feelings of the people who gave him no hope of winning. I, having lived and read enough to get a fair picture of how fucked up we are as a species, had little doubt he could pull it off. We elected a former Wrestler as governor, a former actor as governor, and a former actor as President. We overlook mass genocide in other countries. We ignore climate change. We spend hundreds of billions on defense and less than 10 on space exploration, all the while living on a planet that is already critically overpopulated (and is growing almost exponentially).

Different cultural values. Alright then, @SDGundamX

The claim is that these places are examples of islamic countries 'filled with nice people'. I'm suggesting that @StukaFox's list of vicious police-states is perhaps not best chosen to illustrate this view.

There's a difference in category, isn't there, between being muslim and being japanese or american. It would be absurd to say, "I am japanese because I believe..." just as it would, "I am a muslim because I happened to be born..."

Now, we can actually make sweeping and not the less factual statements about people on the basis of their shared characteristics. Japanese people are born within such a set of geographical coordinates, or to parents who hold citizenship with the state of japan, or have naturalised following a particular procedure. Millions of people lumped together in a single sentence, and without assuming they're all alike.

Muslims, like rats or serial killers, aren't all alike and they don't all believe exactly the same things. Nevertheless by definition there really are certain specific beliefs to which they must all hew. Or show me the muslim who doesn't believe that there's a god, or that muhammed received its doctrine.

If you find basic, universal islamic beliefs repugnant (as every decent person must) then it is correct, objectively correct, to generalise your antipathy to all muslims, however many millions there may be, however widely spread. The apology from number and diversity fails completely.

So you are appalled at what ISIS are doing, but you still see the US army as the worst people in the world? This is why I'm agreeing with that quotation.

As much as US collateral damage could be lessened, they are hardly the worst people in the world. Especially as individuals - when a soldier goes home at the end of their tour, they're just regular a regular person. You cannot say the same thing for a member of a terrorist organisation where the practices listed above are considered not only normal, but law.

There is a really big difference between accidental, or even negligently causing civilian deaths vs. a doctrine to kill civilians (especially when they are your own civilians) - that's another thing entirely no?

Like I said in my previous comment, the bombing is not even anywhere near as indiscriminate as the left media would make it seem.

I'll echo the video again and say you only have to read the qur'an. If you think, for example, 'unbelievers deserve to be tortured forever in the afterlife' is a belief that could be held by a good person, then I just don't know how to find common ground.

People are deceived into defending muslims because they don't like the kind of people they see attacking them. Obviously we don't like Donald Trump, obviously we don't like bible-thumping pastors and their qur'an burning parties, and islam doesn't have to be a race for racists to hate muslims.

None of that bigotry goes any way whatsoever toward excusing actual islamic doctrine. If you examine it objectively and without apology you will find you despise it.

Fear isn't a reasonable reaction to individual muslims, at least not if you meet them in a non-islamic country, but hate certainly is. I don't typically say of people I hate that I'm interested in peaceful coexistence or protecting them from radicalisation.

But is it not true that all these sects mostly disagree on which parts of the doctrine(s) to ignore (or which parts to consider parables and morality tales rather than instructions, which amounts to the same thing)?
That is why I would say there are quite few "true Christians" (but probably not none), and likely the same goes for all other religions that contain differing sects/opinions. (EDIT:This made me realize that, while not a 'no true Scotsman' argument, it is a 'no pure Scotsman' argument, which is quite similar)

The fact that portions of the texts can be interpreted differently by different people is proof enough to me that none of them contain the "perfect word of god", because I think it could not be misinterpreted.

First, I always point out Christianity's faults, specifically Westborough and Mormon secs...it's like you listened to me for years, then decided to belligerently use something I said over and over again against me just because it felt good? I get that you can't remember everything we talk about, but the gist should be gotten at least.

Second, just like the Bible, the book itself is homophobic. Are there fantastic Muslims? Sure. Just like I am sure there are good Scientologists, which I am sure you must defend. But their religion is against psychology medication, period. Does that mean all practice it? No? Well shit, then their doctrine gets a free pass!

I spoke only of their book--not of them. You then support that book, so not sure if that qualifies as supporting Muslims in general (Hint, since I NEVER once said anything about Muslims themselves, you didn't actually defend them. That means you supported the literal doctrine of the Koran.)

So yeah...care to explain how your Progressive beliefs jive with the Koran?

I am sure the father read the constitution, but then the religious books he follows are in contrast with it, so he must view it as pagan doctrine and sinful...

For most of our "civilized history", homosexuals have been attacked and murdered by people like him, not loved and encouraged. For most of our "civilized history" men have had the option to rape women with impunity.
If only, for most of our "civilized history", people like this were shunned when they could not be educated, we would be far more civilized.

Actually, Gohmert, what the founders said clearly was....."As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;" This statement was ratified unanimously by congress in 1797. The constitution was based on English Common Law, which existed in England long before the Romans brought Christianity, so if we are founded on a religious doctrine, it's PAGANISM, you fucking moron.

*promote the *fail

This is unbelievably sloppy thinking. You have a woeful understanding of no true scotsman as well as, apparently, the english language in general.

There are divorced catholics because catholic doctrine is not that it's literally impossible to obtain a divorce. Catholics who get divorces don't suffer sudden existential collapse and wink out of reality. There are no catholics who doubt and despise the bible, who believe that there's no god or historical jesus, and who participate in no catholic tradition. That would be contradictory, and oh look, it's possible to construct a 'no true...' statement that is nevertheless correct. There are no pro-lifers who believe abortion is fine and should be freely available to everyone. There are no democrats who are republicans. There are no jews who believe jesus is the son of god. There are no peaceful muslims.

Put that aside for now. You're arguing for the end of all moral judgement and distinction. Humans are not consistent, therefore it would be outrageous to condemn a car thief for stealing a car. After all, look at all the times he didn't steal a car. Fuck off.

It's possible to make generalisations about arbitrarily large groups that share common attributes. People who steal things are thieves. Apples are fruits. Muslims are violent.

By definition, all muslims share first the belief that mohammed was a good person and second the conviction to follow his example and instruction. By necessity, all muslims share the guilt for the evils of that man, and the evils brought into the world as a result of his legacy.

But altruism is how you portray the works of the church, but you're correct, it's absolutely NOT the right word. They do 'good' for rewards, it's the same reason religious people do 'good deeds', just different 'rewards'.
If atheists did 'good deeds' but required conversion to atheism/abandonment of religious beliefs before offering needed assistance, that would be quite wrong. That's usually how the church, and religious charities work....it's NEVER how atheist charities work.

Religions are evil, not just the churches that use them. Yours starts with instructions to murder, torture, commit incest, enslave non believers, and ends with threats of eternal torture if you don't submit mind body and soul. All that from the bible, which is not a church, but is a doctrine.
EDIT: Religion is terrorism. It is a way to control the actions of others through threat of never ending supernatural torture if they don't do as the church/the preacher/your grandmother/your political party/whomever is using religion says.

You don't need any religion to live honorably, sacrificially, or lovingly. In fact all those things are easier without the blind worship and certitude that 'your religion has the right answer' (to the exclusion of all other 'answers') that all religions insists on, and they are nearly impossible with religion. History has recorded that consistently since cuneiform.