Atheist Sees Image of Big Bang in Piece of Toast

[Moreno636]

The above picture is what passes for intelligence these days? Someone tell Vlad that Western Civilization was founded on the morals and principles of the Christian faith (just take a look at the year, it's 2009 years after Jesus' death!) Vlad shared the same dream as Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong (and he's just as nice as them, too)



Uh, ya think? He's so closed-minded, an idea's got to pick the lock to get inside that big head! Please tell me he has no kids.

Says who?

 

[Worldtraveller]

Someone tell Vlad that Western Civilization was founded on the morals and principles of the Christian faith (just take a look at the year, it's 2009 years after Jesus' death!)

I'd like to see some evidence for this. Most of the ideals of modern western civilization are based on the enlightenment. So, if you would, kindly provide the bible passages that provide the foundation you are claiming.

As for this:

[J]ust take a look at the year, it's 2009 years after Jesus' death!)

1. So? This is just an slightly modified argument ad popularum (sp?) longevity does not equal right. If it did, then Hinduism would be 'more' correct than xianity.

2. The story of Jesus is largely, if not entirely mythological, even if the actual person did exist. the story fits the classicial archetype of the time and follows the same story of several earlier 'messiahs' from previous belief systems. It's like xmas and most other 'xian' holidays. They simply co-opted them as a means of getting the locals they conquered to go along.

 

[Edders]

Says who?

Are you doubting that Jesus was a real person? Or that he died 2009 years ago? I don't think you are questioning the influence of Christian values into our society, because that would be just silly

Jesus as an historical figure is definitely not known for sure, since it did happen so long ago, but lots of evidence points to his existence. Tacitus, a Roman historian, does mention Jesus in his writing. And fyi, Tacitus did not write fiction. It was said about Tacitus, by scholar Ronald Syme "the prime quality of Cornelius Tacitus is distrust. It was needed if a man were to write about the Caesars." He adds that Tacitus "was no stranger to industrious investigation" and his "diligence was exemplary." Jesus was also mentioned by Flavius Josephus in the works that are sometimes called Josephus' Antiquities.

Jesus dying 2009 years ago was a rough estimate by Catholic authorities during the dark ages, according to the few records that made it past the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, including religious and non-religious texts. Without boring you with details, modern historians debate that His death was actually one of these three years: 27, 30, or 33. They figured that because it was said that Jesus died on the 14 Nisan on a Thursday or Friday. (according to the old Hebrew calendar)

So to answer your question of "Says who?", I'd say a lot of people say so

 

[Edders]

I'd like to see some evidence for this. Most of the ideals of modern western civilization are based on the enlightenment. So, if you would, kindly provide the bible passages that provide the foundation you are claiming.

As for this:

1. So? This is just an slightly modified argument ad popularum (sp?) longevity does not equal right. If it did, then Hinduism would be 'more' correct than xianity.

2. The story of Jesus is largely, if not entirely mythological, even if the actual person did exist. the story fits the classicial archetype of the time and follows the same story of several earlier 'messiahs' from previous belief systems. It's like xmas and most other 'xian' holidays. They simply co-opted them as a means of getting the locals they conquered to go along.

I did not use the year as an argument that longevity equals right. I used it as proof of Christianity's influence on Western Civilization.

Also, remember that a long time ago, and even today, lawmakers and other influential people were and are swayed by their beliefs. I can't believe that you do not even want to admit the fact that Christianity very much influenced how our society formed and evolved. But, if you want a bible quote, here is one:

"One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. (Deuteronomy 19.15)"

That can be interpreted to mean that no man is above the law, regardless of social status, an idea that was ludicrous when it was written. The burden of witnesses was also mandated in the New Testament, with an example of two or more witnesses needed in Mathew 18:15-17. The criminal justice systems of most western countries use this Judeo-Christian requirement of having witnesses testify, and we even use the bible to swear on!

An example of the Christian idea of "no man is above the law" happened about 300AD. The Roman Emperor and Christian Theodosius ordered the slaughter of about 7000 people for some political reason, and St Ambrose, the Bishop at the time, wrote a letter to Theodosius proclaiming that he could not do that, and must repent. When Theodosius refused, Ambrose excommunicated him. Theodosius eventually caved in, thus providing us with the first instance of applying the principle that "no man is above the law".

Also, The Magna Carta, in it's own words, state that the charter was formed "out of reverence for God and for the salvation of our soul and those of all our ancestors and heirs, for the honour of God and the exaltation of Holy Church and the reform of our realm, on the advice of our reverend [church] fathers" The Magna Carta is also cited as a precedent by the American revolutionaries when they formed the government of the United States.

Preceding the Magna Carta is the Council of Nicea, in which Catholic bishops outlined the formal code that all christians, regardless of social class, must adhere to. This idea of equality trickled from the teachings of Christianity, disrupted the power of King John of England, and eventually formed the great country of the United States of America.

Me thinks that's pretty influential

 

[Worldtraveller]

That's some pretty good mind reading skill you got, Edders. Oh wait, no it's not. Stop being so damn defensive and try to just stick to the facts, will you? Stop saying stupid **** like :

I can't believe that you do not even want to admit the fact that Christianity very much influenced how our society formed and evolved.

When that's not what anyone here has said. Either quote where I said that, or retract and apoligize. You're just being dishonest.

As for the rest, no one argues that xians and xianity was influential. However, most of modern civilization's values are actually contradictory to the bible. Divine right of kings, slavery, women's lack of equality.

If the Catholic church is such a champion of equal rights, why aren't women allowed to be in the clergy, and why do so many catholics still fight against equal rights for gays?

The Magna Carta? Most of that goes back to english common law. Again, the claim may be that it is done for religion or god or whatever, but the actual principles enshrined therein (like the US constitution, for instance) run counter to most of the bible.

Oddly enough, here in the US, the constitution is most in conflict with the parts of the bible the fundies most like to quote. They are immune to the irony, of course.

 

[Moreno636]

Are you doubting that Jesus was a real person? Or that he died 2009 years ago? I don't think you are questioning the influence of Christian values into our society, because that would be just silly

Jesus as an historical figure is definitely not known for sure, since it did happen so long ago, but lots of evidence points to his existence. Tacitus, a Roman historian, does mention Jesus in his writing. And fyi, Tacitus did not write fiction. It was said about Tacitus, by scholar Ronald Syme "the prime quality of Cornelius Tacitus is distrust. It was needed if a man were to write about the Caesars." He adds that Tacitus "was no stranger to industrious investigation" and his "diligence was exemplary." Jesus was also mentioned by Flavius Josephus in the works that are sometimes called Josephus' Antiquities.

Jesus dying 2009 years ago was a rough estimate by Catholic authorities during the dark ages, according to the few records that made it past the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, including religious and non-religious texts. Without boring you with details, modern historians debate that His death was actually one of these three years: 27, 30, or 33. They figured that because it was said that Jesus died on the 14 Nisan on a Thursday or Friday. (according to the old Hebrew calendar)

So to answer your question of "Says who?", I'd say a lot of people say so

A) There is little evidence to the existence of Christ, the Tacitus refernce is completely unreliable since Tacitus never lived during the proported time of Christ. Tacitus lived from ca. 55 CE to ca 120 CE, also amongst the pantheon of Jewish and Roman recorded history the references to him are close to non existent.

B) If you for arguments sake say that Christ's was a real person there is no way to verify if the bible passages are an accurate depiction of his life since it was written and edited by man (not once but twice)

C) These morals and values existed long before Christianity existed.

D) And are these the same morals and values that ushered in slavery, segregation, subjugation, bigotry, and oppression? Or did we forget about the past 2000 years of the west imposing all these principles on the rest of the world?

C) There is no way to know if Jesus was anything more than a mortal man and not a diety (if he actually existed)

 

[Edders]

When you said this...

I'd like to see some evidence for this. Most of the ideals of modern western civilization are based on the enlightenment. So, if you would, kindly provide the bible passages that provide the foundation you are claiming.

I took it to mean that you did not believe that Christianity influenced Western society. If I'm not mistaken, you DID NOT "admit the fact that Christianity very much influenced how our society formed and evolved", and I couldn't believe it, so I said so. Why does this offend you? Why are YOU so defensive? Anyone with any sense would have read that line without thinking I had any thought of malice or ill intent.

So, to reitierate, you did not say you believed that Christianity influenced Western society, instead you demanded proof. At that point of the thread, you could have either agreed with me, or not. You wanted proof, does that not mean you didn't believe it? You said "Most of the ideals of modern western civilization are based on the enlightenment" as a response to me saying that Christianity influenced Western society, and you wanted proof.

Am I wrong to think that, ergo, you do not believe that Christianity influenced Western Society? And, with that conclusion, is it wrong for me to show my disbelief in such a response?
Here it is, one more time:
"I can't believe that you do not even want to admit the fact that Christianity very much influenced how our society formed and evolved. "

No malice or ill feelings. If you really do, just say so. If you don't, then refute what I posted last. Just stop trying to start a new fight on this new thread (Unless you really want to)

And just one more thin. You say that modern civilization runs counter to the bible, and you cite the divine right of Kings, slaves, and equality for women.

First off, in the bible Jesus was once asked about paying taxes to Rome. In those days, Jerusalem was under Roman occupation, so the question was seen as more of a trick than an honest question (a practice still used in GTAM!:laughing8. Jesus answered (paraphrased) "Give to God what is God's, and give to Ceaser what is Ceasar's" which is meant to clearly draw a line between the Kingdom of Heaven (God) and Earth (Ceaser). There are other passages which deal with how Christians should approach secular or earthly authorities. Basically, the bible teaches that, although you should respect the authorities, know that they are not appointd by God, and there are some things that kings DO NOT have authority over, especially things related to God.

And I never said the Catholic church was a champion of equal rights (Hmmm, now who's mind reading?). But since you bring it up, I dispute your definition of equal rights when it comes to these things. For example, yes, women cannot be clergy, just like men cannot be nuns. Women cannot join certain secular social clubs; there are some that men cannot join either. Is that an issue of fairness? Or can these institutions, in the interests of their fairness, choose who they let into their clubs? What's more fair?

As for gays, no one said that gays cannot be Catholics. They cannot marry in the church's eyes because the definition of marriage to Catholics is a union between "a man and a woman". No one's stopping them from being together. Where's the fairness in forcing an institution, whose definition of marriage has stood for a long time, to now adopt a more secular version of marriage? Homosexuality is seen as unnatural because it disrupts "natural order", that is to say, two guys can't make babies. That is an opinion, nothing more. Where's the fairness to say that people cannot have that opinion? I, personally, could care less if people are gay, in fact, there's a gay couple in my circle of friends and I don't care. They know I'm a Catholic and they haven't said boo to me yet (possibly because I'm bigger than them and can crush them both with a sneeze)

Let's not get too PC about fairness. How about the right to marry more than one person? Or an animal? What's the harm in marrying or even having sex with animals? I'm not trying to be facetious, but I'm illustrating that everyone has their limits, and limits stop somewhere where some will think it is unfair.

PS - stop being so defensive!

 

[Edders]

A) There is little evidence to the existence of Christ, the Tacitus refernce is completely unreliable since Tacitus never lived during the proported time of Christ. Tacitus lived from ca. 55 CE to ca 120 CE, also amongst the pantheon of Jewish and Roman recorded history the references to him are close to non existent.QUOTE]

People have written history about the Civil War that were not born at that time. Do you dispute their accounts? Or do you trust certain historians because of their diligence in researching what they write? Tacitus was renowned for researching his facts. And besides, If Jesus died at about 30AD, that means Tacitus was born only 20 years after that. It's like me writing about WWII, I wasn't there, but I can research and write something reasonably accurate.

C) These morals and values existed long before Christianity existed.

D) And are these the same morals and values that ushered in slavery, segregation, subjugation, bigotry, and oppression? Or did we forget about the past 2000 years of the west imposing all these principles on the rest of the world?

First you say that these morals existed long before Christianity, then you say that these are the same morals that enslaved the world for 2000 years. I don't think the men who have enslaved the world were doing so on the divine order of God (whether they said so or not), and also, like you said, these things existed before Christianity. The Christian countries were the ones that tried to usher out these things like slavery and oppression (with admittedly limited success, but you show me a society that is more inclusive than the ones founded on Judeo-Christian teachings).

C) There is no way to know if Jesus was anything more than a mortal man and not a diety (if he actually existed)

That's why people have faith. Although we will never definitively know, we have faith that St Peter and the authors of the bible knew, and we take their word for it. And arguing about what people have faith in really doesn't get anyone anywhere.

 

[Duster929]

Edders, you are out to lunch. Again, it's folks like you that make this religious debate so difficult, because you argue yourself into a corner by stating with such certainty things that are much more complicated than you make it out to be.

Historians generally believe that Jesus, the person and human being, lived, at the time and place as stated in the bible. It is quite impossible to know if what it written about him in the gospels are his actual words and teaching. What is certain is that the body of stories/message/philosophy of those teachings became the basis for early Christianity. Still more was added to those stories after Christianity grew and spread.

The institution of the Christian or Catholic Church is not, in any case, laid out in those stories and teachings. The status of gays, women, or the clergy are not laid out or described in any way. That is all institutional crap added on by a political system that evolved a thousand years after his death.

As for Christianity influencing the Western World, there's no doubt it's had a big influence. But why stop there? Have you thought about what influenced Christianity? However much of the gospels you attribute to the actual teachings of Jesus (Christ), you would benefit greatly from studying some other world religions, because you'll find that much of what people love and admire about the Christian message (the good stuff), is remarkably consistent with older religions based in what we call the Far East. The stories of the gospel, and the message of Jesus, borrows in many ways from Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and other eastern philosophies/religions. Hinduism even has a deity that was immaculately conceived, and resurrected after three days of death. Sound familiar?

Western Society, whether you're referring to its social or governmental institutions, or code of ethics/morality, and its concept of "freedom", results from a body of knowledge stretching back to the ancients. Our concept of democracy and freedom stretches back to ancient Rome and Greece. The Enlightenment itself was a time during which there was renewed interest in the Classical period, be it in architecture, social policy, art, science, and mathematics.

I think looking at the religion question so narrowly is at best, unproductive. Christianity isn't the only religion. In fact, it's not even a new religion. I'm not saying it's bad. Religion is so much more than Christianity, or Judaism. And it's evolving all the time. Religious beliefs vary from "God in the clouds" to "One God resident in the divinity of each person".

As our knowledge about the world increases, our search for meaning becomes more complicated and profound. But it doesn't stop. To me, that's what religion is.

--- D

 

[Duster929]

That's why people have faith. Although we will never definitively know, we have faith that St Peter and the authors of the bible knew, and we take their word for it. And arguing about what people have faith in really doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Faith in St. Peter and the authors of the bible? Seriously?

Hell, now I know why I can't take either side in this debate.

--- D

 

[Moreno636]

A) There is little evidence to the existence of Christ, the Tacitus refernce is completely unreliable since Tacitus never lived during the proported time of Christ. Tacitus lived from ca. 55 CE to ca 120 CE, also amongst the pantheon of Jewish and Roman recorded history the references to him are close to non existent.

People have written history about the Civil War that were not born at that time. Do you dispute their accounts? Or do you trust certain historians because of their diligence in researching what they write? Tacitus was renowned for researching his facts. And besides, If Jesus died at about 30AD, that means Tacitus was born only 20 years after that. It's like me writing about WWII, I wasn't there, but I can research and write something reasonably accurate.

I would absolutey dispute an account of someone purporting to be a historian wrote about the Civil War if a) He wasn't there and or b) Didn't have any references or corroborating evidence from sources that were actually there. Same goes for your account of World War II, if you gave some first hand account of Goebbel's methods I'd call you out on it. If your doing research that means your taking information from people that were actually there.

First you say that these morals existed long before Christianity, then you say that these are the same morals that enslaved the world for 2000 years. I don't think the men who have enslaved the world were doing so on the divine order of God (whether they said so or not), and also, like you said, these things existed before Christianity. The Christian countries were the ones that tried to usher out these things like slavery and oppression (with admittedly limited success, but you show me a society that is more inclusive than the ones founded on Judeo-Christian teachings).

Thats exactly my point, Christianity didnt influence anything good or bad. You cant on one hand say that "men who enslaved the world" werent following christianity and then in the next breath say that christian countries were the ones that tried to usher it out. Which your totally out to lunch on by the way. The British, French, Spanish, Portugese, and Dutch empires pretty much ravaged the globe under the flag of the cross. They raped and pillaged natural and human resources to the point of near extinction in some cases for thousands of years. So you'll excuse me if I don't take any solace in the Christian countries "ushering" out anything they basically built their foundations for thousands of years.

That's why people have faith. Although we will never definitively know, we have faith that St Peter and the authors of the bible knew, and we take their word for it. And arguing about what people have faith in really doesn't get anyone anywhere.

I know I will take heat for this, but IMHO blind faith is an idiotic concept that religions the world over have used to oppressed the masses.

 

[Vlad]

Watched a great movie the other day - The Man From Earth. It's been a while since pure fiction engaged my intellect that much.

 

[Edders]

I would absolutey dispute an account of someone purporting to be a historian wrote about the Civil War if a) He wasn't there and or b) Didn't have any references or corroborating evidence from sources that were actually there. Same goes for your account of World War II, if you gave some first hand account of Goebbel's methods I'd call you out on it. If your doing research that means your taking information from people that were actually there.
QUOTE]

How do you know that Tacitus did not have good references for what he wrote? People generally agree to Tacitus' history-writing chops. And if we use your logic, then we cannot trust anything people wrote about the early history of this country, since people who knew John A are long dead.

Thats exactly my point, Christianity didnt influence anything good or bad. You cant on one hand say that "men who enslaved the world" werent following christianity and then in the next breath say that christian countries were the ones that tried to usher it out. Which your totally out to lunch on by the way. The British, French, Spanish, Portugese, and Dutch empires pretty much ravaged the globe under the flag of the cross. They raped and pillaged natural and human resources to the point of near extinction in some cases for thousands of years. So you'll excuse me if I don't take any solace in the Christian countries "ushering" out anything they basically built their foundations for thousands of years.

Not including ancient times (where there is one reference where an emperor of China abolished slavery) NO ONE had abolished slavery until the Christian countries started rolling out the idea (I believe it started with England, bu tI'm not sure). And when in came to ravaging the lands, back in those days might meant right, so whoever was mighty, did the ravaging. You keep flip-flopping between

Christianity didnt influence anything good or bad.

and

The British, French, Spanish, Portugese, and Dutch empires pretty much ravaged the globe under the flag of the cross.

I know I will take heat for this, but IMHO blind faith is an idiotic concept that religions the world over have used to oppressed the masses.

I can see how in some places and with some faiths, but you can't possibly say that the Catholic church oppresses the masses. If you don't like what you hear, get up off the pew and leave the church. No one's got a gun to your head. And it's faith, but it's not blind. Believe it or not, I actually get spiritual benefits from going to church.

Edders, you are out to lunch. Again, it's folks like you that make this religious debate so difficult, because you argue yourself into a corner by stating with such certainty things that are much more complicated than you make it out to be.

Well sorry for being brief. Do I need to hand in a 10,000 word essay to satisfy your search for nuiance? Of course this topic is more complicated, but if you haven't noticed, I'm arguing with folks that say "Religion is bad." I did not ask them to categorize the evils in chronological order or anything. And besides, I am a Catholic, so it goes that I focus on who I am. Why am I out to lunch for that? And what's with people saying stuff to me like "you're out to lunch" (times 2!) and "That's some pretty good mind reading skill you got, Edders. Oh wait, no it's not. Stop being so damn defensive and try to just stick to the facts, will you? Stop saying stupid ****" to me? Do I get on your nerves that much? Hell, I didn't even mean to! Can't we be civil to each other, or is it okay to pick on the "CatLick"?

The institution of the Christian or Catholic Church is not, in any case, laid out in those stories and teachings. The status of gays, women, or the clergy are not laid out or described in any way. That is all institutional crap added on by a political system that evolved a thousand years after his death.

Yeah, and I (generally) trust and agree with most that's said by the Catholic leadership. "Institutional crap" rules our lives, my friend, unless you are an anarchist

One more thing, I've been doing nothing but having a fun debate with you guys. It's not that bad yet, but I see in my future insults and bigotry. I never start it, but I end up finishing it (literally, the last thread closed shop because of my "defensive retaliations"; I think I made someone cry!)

 

[Moreno636]

I would absolutey dispute an account of someone purporting to be a historian wrote about the Civil War if a) He wasn't there and or b) Didn't have any references or corroborating evidence from sources that were actually there. Same goes for your account of World War II, if you gave some first hand account of Goebbel's methods I'd call you out on it. If your doing research that means your taking information from people that were actually there.
QUOTE]

How do you know that Tacitus did not have good references for what he wrote? People generally agree to Tacitus' history-writing chops. And if we use your logic, then we cannot trust anything people wrote about the early history of this country, since people who knew John A are long dead.



Not including ancient times (where there is one reference where an emperor of China abolished slavery) NO ONE had abolished slavery until the Christian countries started rolling out the idea (I believe it started with England, bu tI'm not sure). And when in came to ravaging the lands, back in those days might meant right, so whoever was mighty, did the ravaging. You keep flip-flopping between

and




I can see how in some places and with some faiths, but you can't possibly say that the Catholic church oppresses the masses. If you don't like what you hear, get up off the pew and leave the church. No one's got a gun to your head. And it's faith, but it's not blind. Believe it or not, I actually get spiritual benefits from going to church.



Well sorry for being brief. Do I need to hand in a 10,000 word essay to satisfy your search for nuiance? Of course this topic is more complicated, but if you haven't noticed, I'm arguing with folks that say "Religion is bad." I did not ask them to categorize the evils in chronological order or anything. And besides, I am a Catholic, so it goes that I focus on who I am. Why am I out to lunch for that? And what's with people saying stuff to me like "you're out to lunch" (times 2!) and "That's some pretty good mind reading skill you got, Edders. Oh wait, no it's not. Stop being so damn defensive and try to just stick to the facts, will you? Stop saying stupid ****" to me? Do I get on your nerves that much? Hell, I didn't even mean to! Can't we be civil to each other, or is it okay to pick on the "CatLick"?


Yeah, and I (generally) trust and agree with most that's said by the Catholic leadership. "Institutional crap" rules our lives, my friend, unless you are an anarchist

One more thing, I've been doing nothing but having a fun debate with you guys. It's not that bad yet, but I see in my future insults and bigotry. I never start it, but I end up finishing it (literally, the last thread closed shop because of my "defensive retaliations"; I think I made someone cry!)

The "if we dont know, then he must have" isnt a form of logic. We know he didnt reference any sources so he didnt have any. Again, we know because of corroborating evidence of certain historical facts. If there are more than one accounts of an actual event or person that all say the exact same thing...thats as close to proof that it did happen.

Again the teachings of "Christianity" didnt influence anything because nothing in there was new. Everything Christianity expounded had already been established in one form or another. The European empires used "Christian" principles to subjugate the rest of the world...THIS IS THE WESTERN INFLUENCE YOU SPEAK OFF!

How could the other peoples of the world abolish slavery when they were under the rule of the Euro/Christian empires that brought on slavery? Of course it was only the Euro/Christian empires that abolished it...they were the ones in power. Might is right huh...yeah what part of Christianity is that again? The Catholic church doesnt oppress the masses? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA...have you ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition? Want to ask the Mayans, Incas, Goans, and the Jews about that? Lets ask the scientific community circa the 1500 about persecution from the Vatican. Lets ask the peoples of the middle east about the Crusades...the Catholic Church never oppressed the masses...wow!

 

[Duster929]

I can see how in some places and with some faiths, but you can't possibly say that the Catholic church oppresses the masses. If you don't like what you hear, get up off the pew and leave the church. No one's got a gun to your head.

...

Why am I out to lunch for that? And what's with people saying stuff to me like "you're out to lunch"

Sometimes, you don't even have to make a point to show the absurdity of a statement. You just have to state it again. And maybe bold the text.

Yeah, and I (generally) trust and agree with most that's said by the Catholic leadership. "Institutional crap" rules our lives, my friend, unless you are an anarchist.

If you take anything good away from the message of your Jesus Christ, at least take away the message that whatever good he is said to have done in his life, he did by DEFYING the institutional crap that ruled life at his time, and was characterized by many of those institutions as exactly an anarchist. That is actually the core of the "Jesus" message.

--- D

 

[mungo]

How do you know that Tacitus did not have good references for what he wrote? People generally agree to Tacitus' history-writing chops. And if we use your logic, then we cannot trust anything people wrote about the early history of this country, since people who knew John A are long dead.

The point is that people wrote about him while he was alive.

but, even so, according to your religion:

A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. (Deuteronomy 19.15)"

 

[Edders]

I should have been more specific. I meant nowadays. I was refering to your comment:

Moreno636[/B];1082199I know I will take heat for this, but IMHO blind faith is an idiotic concept that religions the world over have used to oppressed the masses.

You did mean nowadays when you said that, didn't you? That's what I was refering to. I am stating that the Catholic church doesn't oppress people like you think they do, according to the above comment. Nowadays, if you don't like Catholicism, you're free to walk, exactly like I stated earlier. If you read the entire statement (instead of just what Duster929 bolded) you might have figured that out. Show me how the church oppresses people, and I will concede. NOWADAYS, because I'm not going to explain the politics of a thousand years ago. Back then, everyone had one way or another to oppress you.

 

[Edders]

The point is that people wrote about him while he was alive.

People wrote about Jesus after he died, because that was when he was a Very Big Deal. Back then, messiahs came a dime a dozen. Why did people decide to write about Him? And why did His story reverberate through the ages, and not anyone else's of his time and place? Peter, who was written about while he was alive, was by all accounts not the most pious man; (ie he denied Jesus three times when asked, he questioned Jesus a lot) why did he eventually start the church in Rome if he was such a doubter? Perhaps it was because he experienced something, that I believe was the message of Jesus. It could have been an illusion, but nonetheless it was very real to him, and he started something amazing.

To me at least, the story of Jesus Christ is still amazing, not the least of which because, like I said, messiahs were a dime a dozen back then, and most had more popular messages like overthrowing the power of Rome violently. To me it looks like Jesus beat the odds to be remembered still, 2000 years later.

 

[Edders]

Actually, slavery was practiced a looooong time before Euro/Christians empires used it. They did not invent slavery; but they did abolish it. All the evils you speak of them doing were also practiced by empires before them; I thought we had already covered that. Although they could have continued the practice of slavery, they decided to abolish it. That's got to count for something.

 

[Duster929]

Show me how the church oppresses people, and I will concede. NOWADAYS, because I'm not going to explain the politics of a thousand years ago. Back then, everyone had one way or another to oppress you.

I'm sorry Edders, but you should therefore concede. The Church oppresses people in a lot of different places in a lot of different ways. We can talk about sexual abuse of boys, but I think we all know about that already. That is the ultimate form of oppression, and was done with the knowledge of many people within the Church. You can try to deny it, but it would be futile. Regardless, there are lots of other examples.

What do you consider "nowadays"? Does the 1940s & 1950s count as "nowadays"? In my grandparents' (and even my parents') generation, in Italy, a woman could not take communion after giving birth, until her child was baptized. In some places, she couldn't even enter the church. She was an unclean sinner. During that time, in Italy, a woman couldn't take communion after having sex with her husband, until she went to confession first and told the priest about it, in whatever detail he deemed necessary.

At the same time, during those days, a boy and girl could not be alone together, even in a public place like a restaurant, under threat of having their membership in the church revoked, with all that went with it - school, clubs, and social programs.

I don't know what you call oppression, but that fits the definition for me.

--- D