Evolutionism.

ThickStemz said:

He listed two, he said something about a retna being upside down but gave no explanation, and then went on to talk about a quala or panda thumb but it eats bamboo well. I didn't address that point because he gave no evidence and that which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

He compared the bad design of a pinto with no one would say then that it didn't have a designer. The reason there is relevance to the Christian god is that Christians are behind this Intelligent Design movement (ID) but there is a vast difference between the god of ID and the Christian God, who is supposed to be perfect.

I know more about the bible and theology than the average person, but I wouldn't say I'm an expert. I grew up in a fundamentalist home and never remember believing it. Of course I felt guilty and that there was something wrong with me. I tried for years to force myself into belief, and I couldn't. I finally realized it was total bullshit. Even the bible. It isn't a coherent message and its all mixed up. The OT is just one of gods failures after another, he keeps screwing up and blaming it on man.

The NT has 4 anonymous gospels with different incompatible stories about Jesus, then you have Acts and the letters that never really talk about jesus except through revelation. I don't think the man actually existed. Have you looked into Dr. Richard Carrier's work on this? He makes a compelling case.

Its difficult to have this conversation with a Christian because I could do a complete dissection of what I see as Christianity, and because of the number of denominations you'd have wiggle room. Its like trying to nail jello to a wall.

I know why youre opposed to evolution. With evolution there is no Adam and Eve, which means no original sin, which totally negates the need for Jesus to come. Evolution is a death nail to Christianity.

Click to expand...

I study the bible every day, and have studied many of the problems with it. OVER AND OVER. The problem is that people forget that the bible was given to man and brought to us through man with all the ideas of man mixed in. So how can you know the truth? The holy spirit. You can accumulate all the knowledge in the world about the bible, but without the missing piece it's futile. There are no mistakes in the bible, god allowed everything to be put in there FOR A REASON.

The old testament was not about god's blunders, but rather a way for man to realize how fucking stupid he really is. Over and over again man is given a chance to follow god's way, but he is so blind by his own "intelligence" that he refuses to believe anything outside of his pursuit of pleasure. So it is today. To have the title of God, there is no way you could make a mistake. By his title alone your assertion about the old testament being him making mistakes is false.

4 anonymous gospels? there are only 4 and they were written by god, given to man through the holy spirit (levi, mark, john, and luke). Just like every word spoken by Jesus was not his own, but rather God spoke through him by the power of the holy spirit. And Acts takes place after Jesus is resurrected and returns to receive his throne in the third heaven, therefore it's the continuation of the gospel of the coming kingdom of god continued through a bunch of men (Jesus was only used to convert 120 so how many do you think there are today? Millions like the churches teach?). Maybe you've been studying with Martin Luther who denies most of the new testament?

All the denominations are wrong - so that should narrow things down for you, but why would you ever rather with a christian? They can't even figure out which sun they are celebrating (the venerable Day of the Sun).

However, if you really think you can educate me on the Bible, i would love to hear it.

Well, there are 4 canonical gospels, there were dozens of others that aren't included. None of the bible ones claim to be eyewitness reports, and the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were just assigned to them, we have no idea who wrote them, and exactly when they were written, but our oldest surviving piece of any of the canonical gospels comes from about 230ad, and its the size of a credit card.

The gospels don't agree with each other. They have differing accounts on a lot of things. Do you really think the Jesus depicted in John is like the meek and mild Jesus depicted in the others? Matthew and Luke just copied Mark for the most part, and John is just way way out there different. Jesus is more of a superman figure there. His personality is much different in John.

How about inconsistencies with major events like Jesus throwing out the money changers from the Temple? John has Jesus starting off his 3 year ministry with this event, the others have Jesus doing this when he returns to Jerusalem in the last week of his life.

How about the different genealogies given for Jesus, the names are not the same in the gospels that provide them.
Gospel of Matthew:
Eliud
Eleazar
Matthan
Jacob
Joseph & Mary *
Jesus

Gospel of John:
Melchi
Levi
Matthat
Heli
Joseph
Jesus

These are the generations prior to jesus, each goes further back, and each continues to be different.

These are things that cannot both be correct. This is Josephs line as it goes back through David in each.

Also, they have Jesus being crucified on different days. There is no agreement in the gospels on this.

There is also the event of Jesus getting pissed at the fig tree. One gospel says it withered immediately, another has it withering the next morning?



There is no way this book is inspired by god.

Just take 10 minutes and watch this, see if you're curious....

ThickStemz said:

Well, there are 4 canonical gospels, there were dozens of others that aren't included. None of the bible ones claim to be eyewitness reports, and the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were just assigned to them, we have no idea who wrote them, and exactly when they were written, but our oldest surviving piece of any of the canonical gospels comes from about 230ad, and its the size of a credit card.

The gospels don't agree with each other. They have differing accounts on a lot of things. Do you really think the Jesus depicted in John is like the meek and mild Jesus depicted in the others? Matthew and Luke just copied Mark for the most part, and John is just way way out there different. Jesus is more of a superman figure there. His personality is much different in John.

How about inconsistencies with major events like Jesus throwing out the money changers from the Temple? John has Jesus starting off his 3 year ministry with this event, the others have Jesus doing this when he returns to Jerusalem in the last week of his life.

How about the different genealogies given for Jesus, the names are not the same in the gospels that provide them.
Gospel of Matthew:
Eliud
Eleazar
Matthan
Jacob
Joseph & Mary *
Jesus

Gospel of John:
Melchi
Levi
Matthat
Heli
Joseph
Jesus

These are the generations prior to jesus, each goes further back, and each continues to be different.

These are things that cannot both be correct. This is Josephs line as it goes back through David in each.

Also, they have Jesus being crucified on different days. There is no agreement in the gospels on this.

There is also the event of Jesus getting pissed at the fig tree. One gospel says it withered immediately, another has it withering the next morning?



There is no way this book is inspired by god.

Just take 10 minutes and watch this, see if you're curious....

Click to expand...

I wish you would just make 1 point at a time so i wouldn't have to dig so deep into your shit.

I know there are all kinds of lost gospels, some of which would probably be true - but noone reads it with 66 books, you think they are going to read it when there are 107 books? You are taking a language that noone speaks anymore and had very little tense value (aramaic) and translating and transliterating into and a language before you even get to english. Not an excuse, just saying - it's not that simple.

The gospels do harmonize quite well, even the day of the crucifixion and the resurrection, it just takes a little time to study those things to figure them out.
Jesus cleansed the temple twice - derp??? lol All 4 of the gospels recollect things a little different, including some things left out or added upon each other. Maybe not all 4 apostles were there for every event? Hard one there, buddy.

There are 4 gospels taken in account by 4 different men with 4 different backgrounds. Levi was a tax collector so he writes as a tax collector. Mark was a teenager, so he writes as a teenager. Luke a doctor, hence the detail given to details. And John was a priest, hence the more spiritual description of the life of Jesus. Once again, i m surprised you have caught this....but most atheists know more about the bible than most "christians", so maybe i'm not surprised.

Actually, those are two different genealogies because of his mom and his step-dad weren't from the same parents (which i hear is a good thing). You would have been better off arguing the virgin birth here.
http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/BQA/k/184/Why-Does-Jesus-Have-Two-Different-Genealogies-Matthew-11-16-Luke-323-38.htm

Jesus was crucified Wednesday Night at 3 p.m. - 3 days 3 nights and resurrected on the sabbath (saturday before sunset) as he was gone from the tomb when they came to check on him "early the first day". So yeah, even sunday worshipping christians can't get that part right.

Please please limit the amount of points, this takes quite a while to type out and i can't type that fast - old fingers.

Here's another point you won't find anywhere on the internet, easily. How long has the earth been in existence? God doesn't say 6,000 years, in fact, there is no time given. The earth was inhabited by the angels before Genesis 1:2, which is why it BECAME tohu and bohu. The angels didn't do their job of implementing god's law and rebelled after they were created to inhabit the earth. Satan took 1/3rd of all the angels with him in this rebellion against god. How long did it take for satan to get these angels to follow him? 1 year? 1,000,000,000,000 years per angel? It doesn't say, but it does say the earth existed much longer than many "christians" are willing to acknowledge.

I know, spiritual knowledge is sparse and hard to accept, but after years of consistent study you could figure out a couple points on your own without some dude telling you what he believes.

The Veil was ripped, now we don't have to rely on others to take us to god. We can go to him ourselves, boldly. Maybe try studying the bible all the way through about 3 times, then you'll know for sure what you're what the word of god says.

and please no more videos of 12 year old boys

Yaaaaawwwwnnnn

SamsonsRiddle said:

and please no more videos of 12 year old boys

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. You're right. It's such a broad and complex topic that it is hard to pin down and talk about.

The new testament wasn't written in Aramaic. That's how we know the deciples didn't write it. Those were poor uneducated people.

The original documents of the new testiment were written in Greek by educated men. Greek isn't as hard of a language to translate from. Its telling that your didnt even know it wasn't written in Aramaic.

As to the ancestry of jesus, giving one for both Joseph and marry isn't the correct answer. They both say Joseph. The difference is becuase their goals are different. Matthew wants to have a royal genealogy. Luke wants a line back to god which is why he goes to adam. Plus many of the names along the way are in there... too coincidentall to be one from each parent.

And we all know Mary wasn't a virgin. It's a mistranslation from the Greek word for young woman.

You've presented some arguments that get the gospels to harmonize. No one argument you gave is impossible. But them all being that way and leading to one cohesive story is a long shot. Very unlikely.

What is far more likely is the scenario put to us by secular scholors.

The gospels talk about how famous jesus was. We have writings that confirm all kinds of people throughout history who had a similar "life" to jesus. They made similar claims. Apalonious of Tyan for instance. He is a confirmed historical figure. Outside of the bible no one talks about jesus. There are NO contemporary independet sources.

Two are often named. Jocephus, tacitus

These are not independent. Jocephus only mentions that there are people who follow a christ. And the Tacitus guy wasn't writing anywhere near that time. They're only repeating what christians are telling them.

But in reality there were people who were in and around Jerusalem who wrote a lot and took interest in such things. Philo of Alexandria for instance... a cult leader who stormed the temple mount and kicked out the merchants there would have drawn his interest.

Oddly enough he does mention christ. Or.. he mentions jesus anyway. Jesus was the name of a celestial being who some jews were worshiping at that time. He was an angelic like being. Not a person.

The gospels seem far more likely in this light. The presentation of jesus the angel having come down to live...

There were a lot of popular movements in religion at that time. Dying and rising gods who offered personal salvation.

Zalmoxis, Romulus, Inanna, Adonis just to name the ones we know predate the christ myth.

The jews saw these cults and wanted their own.

If you examine the cargo cults of the south pacific you'd find a religion that developed in 30 years or less where the natives there were worshiping the cargo of the US war machine. Initially anyone could 'have a revelation' and add new information to this religion.

You can imagine how any Tom Dick or Harry claiming a revelation could be cumbersome. So a messianic figure was developed. He was even supposed to return.

You seem to be a smart man. I was a fundamentalist christian for many years. Life experience pulled me from the faith and I'm so glad for it.

But this whole concept of Christianity makes much more sense from the concept of myth than all the things you said would have to happen.

If you want to limit this to one or two issues at a time, please limit it. I'm add ad I can't find one thing to focus on myself. I've got this entire framework in my mind and it's hard for me to limit it.

As to the age of the earth... I know it doesn't say that's the age. And hey, your scenario is another one of those things that is just so unlikely that it's difficult to accept.

That 12 year old by the way, is dr. Richard carrier. He's a highly intelligent and interesting man. I'm not an expert but he is.

He is an advocate of the christ myth theory. And although we can't say jesus never existed. The christ we know from the bible is pure myth.

ThickStemz said:

Thanks for the reply. You're right. It's such a broad and complex topic that it is hard to pin down and talk about.

The new testament wasn't written in Aramaic. That's how we know the deciples didn't write it. Those were poor uneducated people.

The original documents of the new testiment were written in Greek by educated men. Greek isn't as hard of a language to translate from. Its telling that your didnt even know it wasn't written in Aramaic.

As to the ancestry of jesus, giving one for both Joseph and marry isn't the correct answer. They both say Joseph. The difference is becuase their goals are different. Matthew wants to have a royal genealogy. Luke wants a line back to god which is why he goes to adam. Plus many of the names along the way are in there... too coincidentall to be one from each parent.

And we all know Mary wasn't a virgin. It's a mistranslation from the Greek word for young woman.

You've presented some arguments that get the gospels to harmonize. No one argument you gave is impossible. But them all being that way and leading to one cohesive story is a long shot. Very unlikely.

What is far more likely is the scenario put to us by secular scholors.

The gospels talk about how famous jesus was. We have writings that confirm all kinds of people throughout history who had a similar "life" to jesus. They made similar claims. Apalonious of Tyan for instance. He is a confirmed historical figure. Outside of the bible no one talks about jesus. There are NO contemporary independet sources.

Two are often named. Jocephus, tacitus

These are not independent. Jocephus only mentions that there are people who follow a christ. And the Tacitus guy wasn't writing anywhere near that time. They're only repeating what christians are telling them.

But in reality there were people who were in and around Jerusalem who wrote a lot and took interest in such things. Philo of Alexandria for instance... a cult leader who stormed the temple mount and kicked out the merchants there would have drawn his interest.

Oddly enough he does mention christ. Or.. he mentions jesus anyway. Jesus was the name of a celestial being who some jews were worshiping at that time. He was an angelic like being. Not a person.

The gospels seem far more likely in this light. The presentation of jesus the angel having come down to live...

There were a lot of popular movements in religion at that time. Dying and rising gods who offered personal salvation.

Zalmoxis, Romulus, Inanna, Adonis just to name the ones we know predate the christ myth.

The jews saw these cults and wanted their own.

If you examine the cargo cults of the south pacific you'd find a religion that developed in 30 years or less where the natives there were worshiping the cargo of the US war machine. Initially anyone could 'have a revelation' and add new information to this religion.

You can imagine how any Tom Dick or Harry claiming a revelation could be cumbersome. So a messianic figure was developed. He was even supposed to return.

You seem to be a smart man. I was a fundamentalist christian for many years. Life experience pulled me from the faith and I'm so glad for it.

But this whole concept of Christianity makes much more sense from the concept of myth than all the things you said would have to happen.

If you want to limit this to one or two issues at a time, please limit it. I'm add ad I can't find one thing to focus on myself. I've got this entire framework in my mind and it's hard for me to limit it.

As to the age of the earth... I know it doesn't say that's the age. And hey, your scenario is another one of those things that is just so unlikely that it's difficult to accept.

That 12 year old by the way, is dr. Richard carrier. He's a highly intelligent and interesting man. I'm not an expert but he is.

He is an advocate of the christ myth theory. And although we can't say jesus never existed. The christ we know from the bible is pure myth.

Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of Q? That's the original aramaic writings the greek text was translated from. The jews at the time spoke aramaic, not greek and that would obviously make why it was written in aramaic and translated to greek. It's a pretty simple concept.

You can claim that about the mistranslation of mary being a virgin, but then you would have to prove that to the thousands of different scholars who have translated it that way for a LONG time. It was a piece from the old testament that was prophesied to happen and did. However, after jesus she did have at least two children Jude and James, Jesus' half brothers. I always hear the new age christians saying "god didn't hate esau, he just strongly disliked him." People just want god to fit into their mold and change his word accordingly, instead of finding out who he really is intimately.

I know spiritual things are impossible to understand carnally, and therefore the authenticity of god's word can't come from your own intelligent reasoning.




Geneaology:
A more straightforward and the most common explanation is that Luke's genealogy is of Mary, with Eli being her father, while Matthew's describes the genealogy of Joseph.[40] This view was advanced as early as John of Damascus (d.749).

Luke's text says that Jesus was "a son, as was supposed, of Joseph, of Eli".[41] The qualification has traditionally been understood as acknowledgment of the virgin birth, but some instead see a parenthetical expression: "a son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Eli."[42] In this interpretation, Jesus is called a son of Eli because Eli was his maternal grandfather, his nearest male ancestor.[40] A variation on this idea is to explain "Joseph son of Eli" as meaning a son-in-law,[43] perhaps even an adoptive heir to Eli through his only daughter Mary.[44] An example of the Old Testament use of such an expression is Jair, who is called "Jair son of Manasseh"[45] but was actually son of Manasseh's granddaughter.[46] In any case, the argument goes, it is natural for the evangelist, acknowledging the unique case of the virgin birth, to give the maternal genealogy of Jesus, while expressing it a bit awkwardly in the traditional patrilinear style.

According to R. A. Torrey, the reason Mary is not implicitly mentioned by name is because the ancient Hebrews never permitted the name of a woman to enter the genealogical tables, but inserted her husband as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law.[47]

Lightfoot[43] sees confirmation in an obscure passage of the Talmud,[48] which, as he reads it, refers to "Mary daughter of Eli"; however, both the identity of this Mary and the reading are doubtful.[49] Patristic tradition, on the contrary, consistently identifies Mary's father as Joachim. It has been suggested that Eli is short for Eliakim,[40] which in the Old Testament is an alternate name of Jehoiakim,[50] for whom Joachim is named.

The theory neatly accounts for the genealogical divergence. It is consistent with the early tradition ascribing a Davidic ancestry to Mary. It is also consistent with Luke's intimate acquaintance with Mary, in contrast to Matthew's focus on Joseph's perspective

SamsonsRiddle said:

Have you ever heard of Q? That's the original aramaic writings the greek text was translated from. The jews at the time spoke aramaic, not greek and that would obviously make why it was written in aramaic and translated to greek. It's a pretty simple concept.

You can claim that about the mistranslation of mary being a virgin, but then you would have to prove that to the thousands of different scholars who have translated it that way for a LONG time. It was a piece from the old testament that was prophesied to happen and did. However, after jesus she did have at least two children Jude and James, Jesus' half brothers. I always hear the new age christians saying "god didn't hate esau, he just strongly disliked him." People just want god to fit into their mold and change his word accordingly, instead of finding out who he really is intimately.

I know spiritual things are impossible to understand carnally, and therefore the authenticity of god's word can't come from your own intelligent reasoning.




Geneaology:
A more straightforward and the most common explanation is that Luke's genealogy is of Mary, with Eli being her father, while Matthew's describes the genealogy of Joseph.[40] This view was advanced as early as John of Damascus (d.749).

Luke's text says that Jesus was "a son, as was supposed, of Joseph, of Eli".[41] The qualification has traditionally been understood as acknowledgment of the virgin birth, but some instead see a parenthetical expression: "a son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Eli."[42] In this interpretation, Jesus is called a son of Eli because Eli was his maternal grandfather, his nearest male ancestor.[40] A variation on this idea is to explain "Joseph son of Eli" as meaning a son-in-law,[43] perhaps even an adoptive heir to Eli through his only daughter Mary.[44] An example of the Old Testament use of such an expression is Jair, who is called "Jair son of Manasseh"[45] but was actually son of Manasseh's granddaughter.[46] In any case, the argument goes, it is natural for the evangelist, acknowledging the unique case of the virgin birth, to give the maternal genealogy of Jesus, while expressing it a bit awkwardly in the traditional patrilinear style.

According to R. A. Torrey, the reason Mary is not implicitly mentioned by name is because the ancient Hebrews never permitted the name of a woman to enter the genealogical tables, but inserted her husband as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law.[47]

Lightfoot[43] sees confirmation in an obscure passage of the Talmud,[48] which, as he reads it, refers to "Mary daughter of Eli"; however, both the identity of this Mary and the reading are doubtful.[49] Patristic tradition, on the contrary, consistently identifies Mary's father as Joachim. It has been suggested that Eli is short for Eliakim,[40] which in the Old Testament is an alternate name of Jehoiakim,[50] for whom Joachim is named.

The theory neatly accounts for the genealogical divergence. It is consistent with the early tradition ascribing a Davidic ancestry to Mary. It is also consistent with Luke's intimate acquaintance with Mary, in contrast to Matthew's focus on Joseph's perspective

Click to expand...

Q is jusr a hypothetically asserted explanation. We can't say it's in Aramaic becuase no one has ever seen Q.

The gospels don't say, anywhere within them, that they came from Q.

Q is a guess to explain why the gospels tell the same story but yet have so many differences.

That also takes away from your earlier point about 4 views by 4 different authors with their own perspective.


Consider the following. The story of Barabas. His name means 'son of the father' in Aramaic.

Story is that the Romans offered to either release Jesus or Barabas, a violent treasonous murderer. We know what happend. Barabas was freed and jesus was executed.

Compare this with the tradition of Yam Kippur. Two identical sheep are taken, the jews release one, the other they put all their sins on and execute.

Jesus was a made up man myth to replace the Temple. I doubt you can find any writings about jesus exist prior to the destruction of the Temple. The temple was destroyed and how would the jews then get rid of sins. The logical framework for this is in Hebrews 9.

ThickStemz said:

Q is jusr a hypothetically asserted explanation. We can't say it's in Aramaic becuase no one has ever seen Q.

The gospels don't say, anywhere within them, that they came from Q.

Q is a guess to explain why the gospels tell the same story but yet have so many differences.

That also takes away from your earlier point about 4 views by 4 different authors with their own perspective.


Consider the following. The story of Barabas. His name means 'son of the father' in Aramaic.

Story is that the Romans offered to either release Jesus or Barabas, a violent treasonous murderer. We know what happend. Barabas was freed and jesus was executed.

Compare this with the tradition of Yam Kippur. Two identical sheep are taken, the jews release one, the other they put all their sins on and execute.

Jesus was a made up man myth to replace the Temple. I doubt you can find any writings about jesus exist prior to the destruction of the Temple. The temple was destroyed and how would the jews then get rid of sins. The logical framework for this is in Hebrews 9.

Click to expand...

You should tell a mosque full of young Muslim men that the Qur'an is false, then draw a picture of Muhammad. The sodomites and evangelical agnostics have safety and freedom because of the Christians with guns.

shorelineOG said:

You should tell a mosque full of young Muslim men that the Qur'an is false, then draw a picture of Muhammad. The sodomites and evangelical agnostics have safety and freedom because of the Christians with guns.

Click to expand...

Q is not the Quran.

And frankly the Christians would have had the same reaction you anticipate from the Muslims not too long ago. It isn't Christianity that has lead to a civil society, it is secular values that have been imposed upon a Christian population, who has been kicking and screaming in opposition the whole way, but who has been slowly bent into proper form.

My point is you don't live in a Muslim country. Many of our laws are based on Jewish law. The torah and the new testament civilized man, and even gave them dietary laws and laws for cleanliness. The more religious a Christian is they become charitable or even pacifist like the Quakers and Amish. We know what happens when Muslims become deeply religious. Have you ever seen how savage most cultures are before Christianity? Hindus and Buddhist are also peaceful people but they have been forced to defend themselves from Muslim invaders.

ThickStemz said:

Q is not the Quran.

And frankly the Christians would have had the same reaction you anticipate from the Muslims not too long ago. It isn't Christianity that has lead to a civil society, it is secular values that have been imposed upon a Christian population, who has been kicking and screaming in opposition the whole way, but who has been slowly bent into proper form.

Click to expand...

I bet all those faggots who have AIDS are wishing they had followed Gods laws. Just sayin.

ThickStemz said:

Q is not the Quran.

And frankly the Christians would have had the same reaction you anticipate from the Muslims not too long ago. It isn't Christianity that has lead to a civil society, it is secular values that have been imposed upon a Christian population, who has been kicking and screaming in opposition the whole way, but who has been slowly bent into proper form.

Click to expand...

Selective breeding and evolution is a fact that doesn't contradict creation. The German shepherd was created in less than 100 years. Eugenics was very popular in the medical community, and doctors were castrating and institutionalizing handicap people until the 1960s. I have seen many average people live very blessed and productive happy lives. I have seen geniuses who hit the genetic lottery, self destruct. Genetics and intelligence are important but we are human not animals. Wisdom is more important than inherited intelligence.

shorelineOG said:

My point is you don't live in a Muslim country. Many of our laws are based on Jewish law. The torah and the new testament civilized man, and even gave them dietary laws and laws for cleanliness. The more religious a Christian is they become charitable or even pacifist like the Quakers and Amish. We know what happens when Muslims become deeply religious. Have you ever seen how savage most cultures are before Christianity? Hindus and Buddhist are also peaceful people but they have been forced to defend themselves from Muslim invaders.

Click to expand...

You live in a delusion of your own mind.

The first 1500 years of christianity are as brutal and bloody as any period. The inquisition. The 30 years war. The crusades against the cathars and north eastern Europe are as bloody as any Islamic period.

You're so far off base you're not even really worthy of responding to.

You don't know your history either. The spread of the ottoman empire. We should of let the Aztecs keep their daily routine of chopping off heads for the sun. Like los zetas do today with Santa muerte. Some religions civilize people more than others. Millions of people die because of "immoral " behavior. Even if you don't believe the old testament, it is a very good read. Some of it is relevant today.

ThickStemz said:

You live in a delusion of your own mind.

The first 1500 years of christianity are as brutal and bloody as any period. The inquisition. The 30 years war. The crusades against the cathars and north eastern Europe are as bloody as any Islamic period.

You're so far off base you're not even really worthy of responding to.

Click to expand...

Ive read the old testament, there isn't a civilized country that exists today where anyone who followed it wouldn't swiftly find himself in prison.

The ancient Roman Empire was what became Christianized, I would say the influence of Christianity had the exact opposite effect as you say it would. Once the people became Christian that society regressed until it began taking Christianity less serious during and after what is known as the enlightenment.

Has anyone here read Mein Kampf? The third Reich and holocaust was based on science, eugenics and selective breeding. It is a scientific argument about the value of life. The value of humanity should not be based on science.

shorelineOG said:

You don't know your history either. The spread of the ottoman empire. We should of let the Aztecs keep their daily routine of chopping off heads for the sun. Like los zetas do today with Santa muerte. Some religions civilize people more than others. Millions of people die because of "immoral " behavior. Even if you don't believe the old testament, it is a very good read. Some of it is relevant today.

Click to expand...

Eugenics is pseudoscience. The Nazis were a weird cult mix of Christianity and Nordic pagan myths. One could hardly call them secular rational humanists.

Nazism and eugenics is not a Christian cult, nice try. The Nazis were the best engineers, doctors and scientists in the world. Please document where the Catholic and Lutheran churches are in support of eugenics. Pure atheism, my friend. If I am wrong please show me otherwise. Same with Stalin and communism where they threw the church out, more dead than the holocaust.

Russia had a history of being ruled by an absolute divine right monarch, Stalin was a seminary student. Once Stalin took over he created a cult of personality. It isn't the same type of atheism that Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins advocate, much like North Korea today. The God was the state or the man in power over the state. Much more theocratic than a surface examination would reveal. Yes he kicked Jesus out of the country, but he made himself god.

In history you can interchange the term fascist with 'conservative catholic' and nothing changes. Hitlers birthday was celebrated during mass across all catholic churches in central Europe for several years. His treaty with the Catholic church was his first and the only one he took seriously.

Even the mustachi, the Croatian fascists that caused so much trouble in the 90s were devout catholics.

Hitler grew up in Austria and was a catholic. The german army belt buckle said "God with us" in german.

Neither of those societies have the values of Thomas Payne or Thomas Jefferson. Secular humanism.

Ill concede stalin didn't believe in god, but that's where the similarities end.