The changing face of Jesus. Good idea or bad?

Raggamuffin wrote:Haha! You deleted your details. Frightened of being shot?

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Haha! You deleted your details. Frightened of being shot?

Nope can post them again if you like?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


Nope can post them again if you like?

Why did you delete them?

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why did you delete them?

Simple for reason for that, in that I dont want some people here sending me crap

You asked me to post up and did and can do so again

You thought I would not do it, but I did

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


Simple for reason for that, in that I dont want some people here sending me crap

You asked me to post up and did and can do so again

You thought I would not do it, but I did

Basically, you hoped that no Muslim extremists were looking in at that time.  You're still too chicken to mock them openly.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You're free to mock religious people as long as you don't mind being mocked for being an airheaded moron. Yeah.

Yea if that’s what you think. But you don’t actually think that about me, do you?
But!
If you do think that, you really shouldn’t bother debating with me seeing as nothing I’ll say will be of any value anyway. Right?

No, I don't think that of you. I mean if one wants to mock, one should be prepared to be mocked - not you personally.

veya_victaous wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

So if I chooseto convert to Islam I should consider myself to be a fair target for online threats and abuse? How odd.

Perhaps I should start a campaign of internet stalking, abuse and threats against you for being a Heretic. After all, you chose to be what you are.

And I think you will find that it was a very, very long time ago since Christians of whatever persuasion burned anyone at the stake in the name of the Almighty.

If you want to promote Islam then you're also fair game. And they definitely also get just as much or more than Christians

You could, Christians do that to people regularly, although they do tend to pick on people who didn't make a choice and until the recent turn of public opinion couldn't defend themselves.

So why do you support a group that burns people at the stake? It doesn't matter how long ago it was, it is part of Christianity, You support it? want to bring it back? 
If not then you should be quite happy to see an Evil Institution be purged from humanity so the real Truth can reign.
Or are you some hypocrite, quite Happy so get the benefits of the Science that Christians Burned men for? While Still Praising the Frauds, the murderers and rapists that tried to deny Humanity the Bounty of Science 

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

If you want to promote Islam then you're also fair game. And they definitely also get just as much or more than Christians

You could, Christians do that to people regularly, although they do tend to pick on people who didn't make a choice and until the recent turn of public opinion couldn't defend themselves.

So why do you support a group that burns people at the stake? It doesn't matter how long ago it was, it is part of Christianity, You support it? want to bring it back? 
If not then you should be quite happy to see an Evil Institution be purged from humanity so the real Truth can reign.
Or are you some hypocrite, quite Happy so get the benefits of the Science that Christians Burned men for? While Still Praising the Frauds, the murderers and rapists that tried to deny Humanity the Bounty of Science 

Being C of E it's quite a while since I cheered on any heretic burning...and anyway, the Roman Catholics were so much better at it, particularly those Spanish Dons in the Inquisition with all their strappados and iron maidens and stuff as preliminary entertainment.

Our lot were quite content with sacking the odd monastery and nicking the altar silverware.

And, Veya, if you really think that I support the burning of heretics and would like to see it re-introduced as a Saturday afternoon sport, then be my guest. In this age of tolerance and inclusivity we must not deny even the simple of mind their flights of fancy, no matter how bizarre.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

So if I chooseto convert to Islam I should consider myself to be a fair target for online threats and abuse? How odd.

Perhaps I should start a campaign of internet stalking, abuse and threats against you for being a Heretic. After all, you chose to be what you are.

And I think you will find that it was a very, very long time ago since Christians of whatever persuasion burned anyone at the stake in the name of the Almighty.

If you want to promote Islam then you're also fair game. And they definitely also get just as much or more than Christians

You could, Christians do that to people regularly, although they do tend to pick on people who didn't make a choice and until the recent turn of public opinion couldn't defend themselves.

So why do you support a group that burns people at the stake? It doesn't matter how long ago it was, it is part of Christianity, You support it? want to bring it back? 
If not then you should be quite happy to see an Evil Institution be purged from humanity so the real Truth can reign.
Or are you some hypocrite, quite Happy so get the benefits of the Science that Christians Burned men for? While Still Praising the Frauds, the murderers and rapists that tried to deny Humanity the Bounty of Science 

Being C of E it's quite a while since I cheered on any heretic burning...and anyway, the Roman Catholics were so much better at it, particularly those Spanish Dons in the Inquisition with all their strappados and iron maidens and stuff as preliminary entertainment.

Our lot were quite content with sacking the odd monastery and nicking the altar silverware.

And, Veya, if you really think that I support the burning of heretics and would like to see it re-introduced as a Saturday afternoon sport, then be my guest. In this age of tolerance and inclusivity we must not deny even the simple of mind their flights of fancy, no matter how bizarre.

veya_victaous wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Being C of E it's quite a while since I cheered on any heretic burning...and anyway, the Roman Catholics were so much better at it, particularly those Spanish Dons in the Inquisition with all their strappados and iron maidens and stuff as preliminary entertainment.

Our lot were quite content with sacking the odd monastery and nicking the altar silverware.

And, Veya, if you really think that I support the burning of heretics and would like to see it re-introduced as a Saturday afternoon sport, then be my guest. In this age of tolerance and inclusivity we must not deny even the simple of mind their flights of fancy, no matter how bizarre.

So you seemed to miss a major part of all Christian Scripture.
It's the word of god, and it's simply not true.

why continue to promote a lie, why be some nationalistic spin-off of what is still a proven lie
Even if you don't support the burning of heretics you support keeping alive the lies that allowed it.
why?

Why not put the effort into promoting something that at least might be true?

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Being C of E it's quite a while since I cheered on any heretic burning...and anyway, the Roman Catholics were so much better at it, particularly those Spanish Dons in the Inquisition with all their strappados and iron maidens and stuff as preliminary entertainment.

Our lot were quite content with sacking the odd monastery and nicking the altar silverware.

And, Veya, if you really think that I support the burning of heretics and would like to see it re-introduced as a Saturday afternoon sport, then be my guest. In this age of tolerance and inclusivity we must not deny even the simple of mind their flights of fancy, no matter how bizarre.

So you seemed to miss a major part of all Christian Scripture.
It's the word of god, and it's simply not true.

why continue to promote a lie, why be some nationalistic spin-off of what is still a proven lie
Even if you don't support the burning of heretics you support keeping alive the lies that allowed it.
why?

Why not put the effort into promoting something that at least might be true?

Just what "lie" are you talking about?

If it is that there is a God - a diety, a supreme being or whatever - you can no more disprove that than I can prove it. The difference between us is that unlike you, I am not so arrogant that I consider myself justified in insulting and holding up to ridicule and contempt anyone who chooses not to adopt and conform to my own belief.

I am simply taking advantage of my freedom and right of choice whether to believe or not; you clearly wish to deprive me of that freedom a right.

And you infer that I am being a hypocrite?

If the "lie" is that Jesus Christ taught (and Christians, by definition should at least try their best to live their lives in accordance with the standards laid down in His teaching) that heretics should be burned at the stake, he didn't. Nowhere, in all the New Testament accounts written or dictated by those who had known and followed him does it say any such thing.

In fact one of Christ's last commandments was that mankind (alright then, personkind) should love one another.

The fact that the Bishops and clerics who were the principal law makers and enforcers  in Medieval times chose to use their own warped interpretation of the scriptures and a literal translation of the tribal myths, folklore and traditions that make up the Old Testament for their own purposes...largely ridding the state of troublemakers and opponents...is something that only a fool would try to blame on present day believers.

Even the Decalogue - the ten Commandments  - says nothing whatsoever about burning heretics. Admittedly they command obedience to and respect of God, but they also require people to honour their parents, not to kill, steal or perjure and not to commit adultery or be jealous of someone else's possessions.

Now I don't know just what standards you abide by, but personally I can't see anything wrong with any of that.

veya_victaous wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Just what "lie" are you talking about?

If it is that there is a God - a diety, a supreme being or whatever - you can no more disprove that than I can prove it. The difference between us is that unlike you, I am not so arrogant that I consider myself justified in insulting and holding up to ridicule and contempt anyone who chooses not to adopt and conform to my own belief.

I am simply taking advantage of my freedom and right of choice whether to believe or not; you clearly wish to deprive me of that freedom a right.

And you infer that I am being a hypocrite?

If the "lie" is that Jesus Christ taught (and Christians, by definition should at least try their best to live their lives in accordance with the standards laid down in His teaching) that heretics should be burned at the stake, he didn't. Nowhere, in all the New Testament accounts written or dictated by those who had known and followed him does it say any such thing.

In fact one of Christ's last commandments was that mankind (alright then, personkind) should love one another.

The fact that the Bishops and clerics who were the principal law makers and enforcers  in Medieval times chose to use their own warped interpretation of the scriptures and a literal translation of the tribal myths, folklore and traditions that make up the Old Testament for their own purposes...largely ridding the state of troublemakers and opponents...is something that only a fool would try to blame on present day believers.

Even the Decalogue - the ten Commandments  - says nothing whatsoever about burning heretics. Admittedly they command obedience to and respect of God, but they also require people to honour their parents, not to kill, steal or perjure and not to commit adultery or be jealous of someone else's possessions.

Now I don't know just what standards you abide by, but personally I can't see anything wrong with any of that.

What is a LIE is the Fact the Bible is a book of truth.
it states it is 100% true then proceeds to be almost completely wrong about almost all the measurable fact in the universe. From the shape of earth, origins of life, Natural Phenomenon and Functions, the solar system the planet everything.

If it is Wrong about everything that is measurable and it Stated what it presented was 100% true, it is therefore FRAUDULENT. not just wrong it is an Active lie. Considering it is Proven Fraudulent everything else is States is Highly Suspect and the fact the only things not proven fraudulent are things un-provable one way or the other.

I can't prove there is not God in General, but if you can't prove the God as defined in the Bible is Completely False than You should not be allowed to Graduate High school, You obviously didn't even learn the Basics like the Earth Revolves around the Sun. I literally would use that as a mental exercise for teenagers, No Adult should be so uneducated as to Not be able Prove the God of the Bible to be False. 



Christ words are nothing fucking special 100,000's of others have said the same shit, it's only when Hypocrites and dumb asses follow an Institution that plays with their words AND PRETEND that they are not being arrogant when they Deny PROVEN fact for their Bullshit Fairytale.

Even the first books of the bible weren't written for decades after his death so there is NO RECORDED WORDS OF CHRIST, if you weren't a hypocrite of course you'd know that...
And Don't Blame me for your Hypocrisy, you've just admitted you want people to Acknowledge a Proven Lie for no reason other than Fairytales you can't grow out of.

veya_victaous wrote:Jesus??? first socialist??    
you forget Buddha half a Millennia before Jesus was born..


And Also almost all Native Tribal religions. Socialism is the default State of the tribe and therefore mankind.. (our ancestors evolved to be complex social animals before Homo Sapiens appear) 
it is the idea of classes, kings and chosen ones that comes later. the Concept of Ownership is Not default, proven by the fact the oldest cultures(aboriginals) didn't have it.

veya_victaous wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Just what "lie" are you talking about?

If it is that there is a God - a diety, a supreme being or whatever - you can no more disprove that than I can prove it. The difference between us is that unlike you, I am not so arrogant that I consider myself justified in insulting and holding up to ridicule and contempt anyone who chooses not to adopt and conform to my own belief.

I am simply taking advantage of my freedom and right of choice whether to believe or not; you clearly wish to deprive me of that freedom a right.

And you infer that I am being a hypocrite?

If the "lie" is that Jesus Christ taught (and Christians, by definition should at least try their best to live their lives in accordance with the standards laid down in His teaching) that heretics should be burned at the stake, he didn't. Nowhere, in all the New Testament accounts written or dictated by those who had known and followed him does it say any such thing.

In fact one of Christ's last commandments was that mankind (alright then, personkind) should love one another.

The fact that the Bishops and clerics who were the principal law makers and enforcers  in Medieval times chose to use their own warped interpretation of the scriptures and a literal translation of the tribal myths, folklore and traditions that make up the Old Testament for their own purposes...largely ridding the state of troublemakers and opponents...is something that only a fool would try to blame on present day believers.

Even the Decalogue - the ten Commandments  - says nothing whatsoever about burning heretics. Admittedly they command obedience to and respect of God, but they also require people to honour their parents, not to kill, steal or perjure and not to commit adultery or be jealous of someone else's possessions.

Now I don't know just what standards you abide by, but personally I can't see anything wrong with any of that.

What is a LIE is the Fact the Bible is a book of truth.
it states it is 100% true then proceeds to be almost completely wrong about almost all the measurable fact in the universe. From the shape of earth, origins of life, Natural Phenomenon and Functions, the solar system the planet everything.

If it is Wrong about everything that is measurable and it Stated what it presented was 100% true, it is therefore FRAUDULENT. not just wrong it is an Active lie. Considering it is Proven Fraudulent everything else is States is Highly Suspect and the fact the only things not proven fraudulent are things un-provable one way or the other.

I can't prove there is not God in General, but if you can't prove the God as defined in the Bible is Completely False than You should not be allowed to Graduate High school, You obviously didn't even learn the Basics like the Earth Revolves around the Sun. I literally would use that as a mental exercise for teenagers, No Adult should be so uneducated as to Not be able Prove the God of the Bible to be False. 



Christ words are nothing fucking special 100,000's of others have said the same shit, it's only when Hypocrites and dumb asses follow an Institution that plays with their words AND PRETEND that they are not being arrogant when they Deny PROVEN fact for their Bullshit Fairytale.

Even the first books of the bible weren't written for decades after his death so there is NO RECORDED WORDS OF CHRIST, if you weren't a hypocrite of course you'd know that...
And Don't Blame me for your Hypocrisy, you've just admitted you want people to Acknowledge a Proven Lie for no reason other than Fairytales you can't grow out of.

Thor wrote:

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/481391/Jesus-Christ-real-face

Original Quill wrote:Jesus was the founder of humanist philosophy...forget the Pauline bullshite about a bearded old man who lives in the sky.

I don't know about his link to David, but he should stand next to great philosophers.

Syl wrote:I remember when we were kids we would get into trouble if we …"Took the Lords name in vain".
How times have changed.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Syl wrote:I remember when we were kids we would get into trouble if we …"Took the Lords name in vain".
How times have changed.

Yeah, and we still burn heretics, you know  

Syl wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Yeah, and we still burn heretics, you know  

Yep...and witches and stuff, some things never change.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Syl wrote:

Yep...and witches and stuff, some things never change.

Actually, it's a fallacy that witches were burned in England; the judicial punishment under Henry V111's Witchcraft Act was hanging.

Those burnings that occurred were probably down to lynch mobs handing out their own brand of justice against supposed witches, particularly in the confusion of the English Civil war when Witchfinder General Mathew Hopkins was rampant in the Eastern counties. He and his associates were probably responsible for almost half the judicial hangings that ever took place in England.
 

Years ago, I wrote a play about the subject and it went on to be broadcast.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Just what "lie" are you talking about?

If it is that there is a God - a diety, a supreme being or whatever - you can no more disprove that than I can prove it. The difference between us is that unlike you, I am not so arrogant that I consider myself justified in insulting and holding up to ridicule and contempt anyone who chooses not to adopt and conform to my own belief.

I am simply taking advantage of my freedom and right of choice whether to believe or not; you clearly wish to deprive me of that freedom a right.

And you infer that I am being a hypocrite?

If the "lie" is that Jesus Christ taught (and Christians, by definition should at least try their best to live their lives in accordance with the standards laid down in His teaching) that heretics should be burned at the stake, he didn't. Nowhere, in all the New Testament accounts written or dictated by those who had known and followed him does it say any such thing.

In fact one of Christ's last commandments was that mankind (alright then, personkind) should love one another.

The fact that the Bishops and clerics who were the principal law makers and enforcers  in Medieval times chose to use their own warped interpretation of the scriptures and a literal translation of the tribal myths, folklore and traditions that make up the Old Testament for their own purposes...largely ridding the state of troublemakers and opponents...is something that only a fool would try to blame on present day believers.

Even the Decalogue - the ten Commandments  - says nothing whatsoever about burning heretics. Admittedly they command obedience to and respect of God, but they also require people to honour their parents, not to kill, steal or perjure and not to commit adultery or be jealous of someone else's possessions.

Now I don't know just what standards you abide by, but personally I can't see anything wrong with any of that.

What is a LIE is the Fact the Bible is a book of truth.
it states it is 100% true then proceeds to be almost completely wrong about almost all the measurable fact in the universe. From the shape of earth, origins of life, Natural Phenomenon and Functions, the solar system the planet everything.

If it is Wrong about everything that is measurable and it Stated what it presented was 100% true, it is therefore FRAUDULENT. not just wrong it is an Active lie. Considering it is Proven Fraudulent everything else is States is Highly Suspect and the fact the only things not proven fraudulent are things un-provable one way or the other.

I can't prove there is not God in General, but if you can't prove the God as defined in the Bible is Completely False than You should not be allowed to Graduate High school, You obviously didn't even learn the Basics like the Earth Revolves around the Sun. I literally would use that as a mental exercise for teenagers, No Adult should be so uneducated as to Not be able Prove the God of the Bible to be False. 



Christ words are nothing fucking special 100,000's of others have said the same shit, it's only when Hypocrites and dumb asses follow an Institution that plays with their words AND PRETEND that they are not being arrogant when they Deny PROVEN fact for their Bullshit Fairytale.

Even the first books of the bible weren't written for decades after his death so there is NO RECORDED WORDS OF CHRIST, if you weren't a hypocrite of course you'd know that...
And Don't Blame me for your Hypocrisy, you've just admitted you want people to Acknowledge a Proven Lie for no reason other than Fairytales you can't grow out of.

Apart from never having said, or even believed, that the Bible is a book of truth (your words, not mine...I've already described the Old Testament as myth, fable and tribal folklore)) all I have claimed is that the teachings of Christ set out the standards to which I aspire and, sadly, cannot claim fully to have achieved, and that I personally believe in God.

You apparently think that my belief is that God is an old guy with long whiskers sitting on a cloud and showering blessings and benevolence on believers and hurling thunderbolts down on non-believers. It isn't.

I do, however, believe in a Creator - and that could be a chemical reaction or a demonstration of the powers of physics, for all I know. I am neither a theologian nor a scientist.

You seem to rubbish and condemn my belief in and attempts to follow the teachings of Christ. That's your right; perhaps dishonoring your parents, killing, lying, stealing, and perjuring yourself are your own favoured lifestyle standards. I neither know nor, indeed, do I care.

I also happen to think that faith, hope and charity are pretty good principles to try to live up to. To you they are obviously just...what was your eloquent description of my beliefs?..bullshit

I have made what is  purely a personal choice and one that I have no wish to impose on you or anyone else. Frankly, I find it difficult to see how that is hypocritical.

I don't know whether you have ever seen the Rubens triptych, Adoration of the Magi, in King's College Chapel, Cambridge. Or Michelangelo's painted ceiling in the Sistine Chapel. Or Ely, Canterbury, St Paul's or Hereford Cathedrals. They were all inspired by Christianity and built and created by believers in Christ's teaching...the same believers who, throughout history have included some of the greatest names in literature, art, science, technology and medicine.

It must be so satisfying for you to consider yourself the moral and intellectual superior of people like that...

Oh, and you do realise, don't you, that the earliest epistles were written, or more likely dictated, within the living memory of some of those who actually knew Christ and were followers? The Romans, Greeks, Hebrews, Egyptians, etc were not entirely illiterate.

eddie wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:



Apart from never having said, or even believed, that the Bible is a book of truth (your words, not mine...I've already described the Old Testament as myth, fable and tribal folklore)) all I have claimed is that the teachings of Christ set out the standards to which I aspire and, sadly, cannot claim fully to have achieved, and that I personally believe in God.

You apparently think that my belief is that God is an old guy with long whiskers sitting on a cloud and showering blessings and benevolence on believers and hurling thunderbolts down on non-believers. It isn't.

I do, however, believe in a Creator - and that could be a chemical reaction or a demonstration of the powers of physics, for all I know. I am neither a theologian nor a scientist.

You seem to rubbish and condemn my belief in and attempts to follow the teachings of Christ. That's your right; perhaps dishonoring your parents, killing, lying, stealing, and perjuring yourself are your own favoured lifestyle standards. I neither know nor, indeed, do I care.

I also happen to think that faith, hope and charity are pretty good principles to try to live up to. To you they are obviously just...what was your eloquent description of my beliefs?..bullshit

I have made what is  purely a personal choice and one that I have no wish to impose on you or anyone else. Frankly, I find it difficult to see how that is hypocritical.

I don't know whether you have ever seen the Rubens triptych, Adoration of the Magi, in King's College Chapel, Cambridge. Or Michelangelo's painted ceiling in the Sistine Chapel. Or Ely, Canterbury, St Paul's or Hereford Cathedrals. They were all inspired by Christianity and built and created by believers in Christ's teaching...the same believers who, throughout history have included some of the greatest names in literature, art, science, technology and medicine.

It must be so satisfying for you to consider yourself the moral and intellectual superior of people like that...

Oh, and you do realise, don't you, that the earliest epistles were written, or more likely dictated, within the living memory of some of those who actually knew Christ and were followers? The Romans, Greeks, Hebrews, Egyptians, etc were not entirely illiterate.

They are not the standards of Christ they are the standards of Man.
Raised atheist with both grandfathers being atheists(Believing in Science) and still have those same standards, Buddhist and Hindu standards are the same too.
To Claim they have anything to do with Christ specifically is bullshit, most cultures have some sort of fairy-tale to teach those lessons to Children. to elevate it beyond it's true state (a fairytale) is a disservice to the truth.. and despite it's few good points there is so much bad shit in it that it is better to be removed since those good points are easily found in other sources that don't have the long association with evil deeds and fraudulent teachings

they are the greatest names remembered because the Church Suppressed (or literally killed) the others

So even the earliest epistles recollections of Christ where highly degraded by time before their first recording

eddie wrote:

gelico wrote:

eddie wrote:

And God did appear to the homosexuals and did say unto them that they were sinful

and they did say ''but you made us, oh Lord exactly as we are''

and God did say unto them  ''yeah but if i made homosexuals it was a mistake''

and they did say  ''but you have made the same mistake millions of times''

and God did say  ''which proves i am an incompetent twat who can't get it right and don't play fair and only fools would rely on me for anything''

and the people did agree




from the book of Gelico

Thorin wrote:

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/481391/Jesus-Christ-real-face

veya_victaous wrote:

eddie wrote:

the problem is that is not what the bible says, and the main reason the kid even has self doubt about being gay is the Bible and it's effect on society.
Although who knows with 'Jesus' himself, he might not of cared but he was still raised in a very homophobic society.
the Greek gods never had this issue

drsynne wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

the problem is that is not what the bible says, and the main reason the kid even has self doubt about being gay is the Bible and it's effect on society.
Although who knows with 'Jesus' himself, he might not of cared but he was still raised in a very homophobic society.
the Greek gods never had this issue

Good luck with the Greek Gods because they had all the depth and integrity of some spray tanned cast of a reality series. You were favoured because you were pretty or brave or clever, usually pretty though. If you were some shit kicking, ugly frmer you were pretty much screwed.

Christ said everyone of you is equal in the eyes of God, It's the content of character not your status or nationality or attractiveness. Unsurprisingly that's why Western Christianity gave rise to Western Liberal values.

Thorin wrote:

drsynne wrote:

Good luck with the Greek Gods because they had all the depth and integrity of some spray tanned cast of a reality series. You were favoured because you were pretty or brave or clever, usually pretty though. If you were some shit kicking, ugly frmer you were pretty much screwed.

Christ said everyone of you is equal in the eyes of God, It's the content of character not your status or nationality or attractiveness. Unsurprisingly that's why Western Christianity gave rise to Western Liberal values.

Apart from the first born of Egypt of course?

I would say it was the age of enlightenment that gave rise to liberal values and secularism. I mean surely why did Liberal values not arise until well over a thousand years from the formation of Christianity?

I mean yeah Jesus taught some very forward thinking views for the time. If anything his message was corrupted by the likes of Paul and those who deified him

Thorin wrote:Jesus was a Jew first and foremost and stated clearly in the Gospel's he never came to change the law. Nor did he ever condemn previous acts within the Old testament. The Old Testament is very much part of Christianity. So it cannot be dismissed. Hence the conflicting message that comes from Jesus

Yes indeed certain Christian groups centuries later certainly were instrumental in ending slavery, but what does that prove? Only that people can see the horror with their own eyes of what slavery is. The reality is for centuries people used the bible top endorse slavery. All that can be said is that progressive values started to form within minority groups for the time and no doubt. Aspects of what Jesus taught played a part with some of these groups. The greatest leaps forward though come from a complete divorce from religious thinking

drsynne wrote:

Thorin wrote:Jesus was a Jew first and foremost and stated clearly in the Gospel's he never came to change the law. Nor did he ever condemn previous acts within the Old testament. The Old Testament is very much part of Christianity. So it cannot be dismissed. Hence the conflicting message that comes from Jesus

Yes indeed certain Christian groups centuries later certainly were instrumental in ending slavery, but what does that prove? Only that people can see the horror with their own eyes of what slavery is. The reality is for centuries people used the bible top endorse slavery. All that can be said is that progressive values started to form within minority groups for the time and no doubt. Aspects of what Jesus taught played a part with some of these groups. The greatest leaps forward though come from a complete divorce from religious thinking

Again though it was a book of it's time when slavery was a part and parcel of life then. The fact that he didn't condemn takes nothing away from his central message which was radical for it's time and place and everywhere. It is easy to take a spokeman from any time and loading that person with the sins of that society. How many enlightenment people didn't condemn all the mores we find unnacceptable of their time. You can only take it in the context of it's time and place and see the values in the message. For instance Neitzche is someone who could be termed a spokeman for irreligion and he held some fairly unsavoury views. Likewise did a lack of religion help to promote a free and equal society in Soviet Russia or China.

We can't really seperate out how religious thinking came to inform progressive attitudes because - as all societies had religion - we have no model as to how that would have panned out. All we can say is that there is correlation between many proggressives movements and religious thought from John Ball in the peasants revolt, to Martin Luther Kings civil rights movement.

I say this not to try and imply that morality only springs from religion - it obviously doesn't - but to answer the claim that religion is responsible only for the bad things in history is a partisan argument that many anti theists fall back on.

Thorin wrote:

drsynne wrote:

Again though it was a book of it's time when slavery was a part and parcel of life then. The fact that he didn't condemn takes nothing away from his central message which was radical for it's time and place and everywhere. It is easy to take a spokeman from any time and loading that person with the sins of that society. How many enlightenment people didn't condemn all the mores we find unnacceptable of their time. You can only take it in the context of it's time and place and see the values in the message. For instance Neitzche is someone who could be termed a spokeman for irreligion and he held some fairly unsavoury views. Likewise did a lack of religion help to promote a free and equal society in Soviet Russia or China.

We can't really seperate out how religious thinking came to inform progressive attitudes because - as all societies had religion - we have no model as to how that would have panned out. All we can say is that there is correlation between many proggressives movements and religious thought from John Ball in the peasants revolt, to Martin Luther Kings civil rights movement.

I say this not to try and imply that morality only springs from religion - it obviously doesn't - but to answer the claim that religion is responsible only for the bad things in history is a partisan argument that many anti theists fall back on.

Well Jainism would certainly be a model to look at, the Cathars (though wiped out) etc. There is certainly some to look at

A lack of religion in regards to China and the Soviet Union was more about instigating horrific economical plans with no due care for the populace. Also enforcing totalitarianism onto society with an iron fist. None of this could be down to a lack of religious belief, but like a religion, an ideology. Sure there was certainly persecution by both against religions. Not denying that either, but most deaths and murder were around its appalling version of Communism

Never claimed it is responsible only for the bad things in history, but it certainly plays a huge role in most of histories violence. So religion has played some good parts, like with the influence on music, art etc. Ha even produced great thinkers of peace. Martin Luther King for example. So not trying to say religion is all bad and indeed it certainly brings comfort and peace of mind for people. The problem with many religions is when people try to impose these religious beliefs onto others. Especially when they have doctrines that glorify and promote violence 

So yeah some great people in history and movements have been religious, but many of them still held other poor and illiberal views in regards to other rights. Especially around women, homosexuality for example

So not discounting some aspects have been good, but history shows us. That for the most part its been bad

drsynne wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Well Jainism would certainly be a model to look at, the Cathars (though wiped out) etc. There is certainly some to look at

A lack of religion in regards to China and the Soviet Union was more about instigating horrific economical plans with no due care for the populace. Also enforcing totalitarianism onto society with an iron fist. None of this could be down to a lack of religious belief, but like a religion, an ideology. Sure there was certainly persecution by both against religions. Not denying that either, but most deaths and murder were around its appalling version of Communism

Never claimed it is responsible only for the bad things in history, but it certainly plays a huge role in most of histories violence. So religion has played some good parts, like with the influence on music, art etc. Ha even produced great thinkers of peace. Martin Luther King for example. So not trying to say religion is all bad and indeed it certainly brings comfort and peace of mind for people. The problem with many religions is when people try to impose these religious beliefs onto others. Especially when they have doctrines that glorify and promote violence 

So yeah some great people in history and movements have been religious, but many of them still held other poor and illiberal views in regards to other rights. Especially around women, homosexuality for example

So not discounting some aspects have been good, but history shows us. That for the most part its been bad

I kind of agree and disagree with you, except I don't agree it's been bad for the most part. It's simply a mixed bag, much like many institutions and ideologies.

As for totalitarian regimes, even with atheism as the state credo this made no difference to the atrocities committed. So I suspect that when it comes to the causes of war and oppression the real culprit is mankind.

drsynne wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Well Jainism would certainly be a model to look at, the Cathars (though wiped out) etc. There is certainly some to look at

A lack of religion in regards to China and the Soviet Union was more about instigating horrific economical plans with no due care for the populace. Also enforcing totalitarianism onto society with an iron fist. None of this could be down to a lack of religious belief, but like a religion, an ideology. Sure there was certainly persecution by both against religions. Not denying that either, but most deaths and murder were around its appalling version of Communism

Never claimed it is responsible only for the bad things in history, but it certainly plays a huge role in most of histories violence. So religion has played some good parts, like with the influence on music, art etc. Ha even produced great thinkers of peace. Martin Luther King for example. So not trying to say religion is all bad and indeed it certainly brings comfort and peace of mind for people. The problem with many religions is when people try to impose these religious beliefs onto others. Especially when they have doctrines that glorify and promote violence 

So yeah some great people in history and movements have been religious, but many of them still held other poor and illiberal views in regards to other rights. Especially around women, homosexuality for example

So not discounting some aspects have been good, but history shows us. That for the most part its been bad

I kind of agree and disagree with you, except I don't agree it's been bad for the most part. It's simply a mixed bag, much like many institutions and ideologies.

As for totalitarian regimes, even with atheism as the state credo this made no difference to the atrocities committed. So I suspect that when it comes to the causes of war and oppression the real culprit is mankind.