(April 28, 2020 at 3:50 pm)Drich Wrote:

(April 28, 2020 at 12:15 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Why should I care what Voltaire's opinions on the future were or what happened to his house. There was no way to determine the percentage of atheists around the world in his day, where did you get 3.5% from?

because he was king atheist and started the movement and grandfather the same BS arguments you guys still use. IE if he was wrong about his prediction based on information and an understanding of God you guys still follow then he was wrong about his base beliefs IE you in turn are wrong where your beliefs cross.. Do you people not even understand your origins and shared beliefs?

his house being used  is just insult to his proud proclamation.

---

(April 28, 2020 at 3:11 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Actually it's not false. 
It may not be entirely correct with respect to the early communities, but when orthodox Christianity was codified, it is true. 
By 325 in the creed developed at Nicaea, (which was argued about and non-unanimously voted on), he was said to be divine. 
From then on, Christians declared him to be divine, (which makes no sense as Jesus was a Jew, and NO one approached the status of Yahweh, AND a "son of god" was simply a righteous man. In each of the gospels, the divinity is different. It is present that early, with different views. 
In Hebrew culture, there were many divine beings, but none of them reached anything like the status of Yahweh.

still 2 as not addressed to me.

Go fuck yourself Drippy. 
Nothing is about you. 
Nothing. 
You have nothing to offer here.
No only have you nothing to offer, you actually CAN'T respond as you have no education in the matters discussed here, (as you prove with this number thing).
Best you watch out, I'll put you on probation, (what a fucking total joke you are).
Get lost. (Before you go, give us all the names you LIED about wanting you banned from AD). LOL

(April 28, 2020 at 3:11 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: It may not be entirely correct with respect to the early communities, but when orthodox Christianity was codified, it is true.

There's never been an "orthodox Christianity"; rather, right up to the present day, things have been in a constant flux.  The Council of Nicea did not change that, but rather fueled it.  You can, for instance, compare Lumen Gentium (in particular, #14)  from the Second Vatican Council to Cantate Domino from the Council of Florence.  I do not know (or, for that matter, really care) what people like Drich believe.  His version of Christianity is one of many, right from the "beginning" (which likely began in the 40s, a decade after Jesus' death) right up to the present day.  The Christian religion(s) is just a bunch of competing memes, cultural viruses that infect individuals and cultures down through the ages, mutating and changing as the "doctrines" morph and evolve over time.

(April 28, 2020 at 11:44 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 28, 2020 at 3:11 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: It may not be entirely correct with respect to the early communities, but when orthodox Christianity was codified, it is true.

There's never been an "orthodox Christianity"; rather, right up to the present day, things have been in a constant flux.  The Council of Nicaea did not change that, but rather fueled it.  You can, for instance, compare Lumen Gentium (in particular, #14)  from the Second Vatican Council to Cantate Domino from the Council of Florence.  I do not know (or, for that matter, really care) what people like Drich believe.  His version of Christianity is one of many, right from the "beginning" (which likely began in the 40s, a decade after Jesus' death) right up to the present day.  The Christian religion(s) is just a bunch of competing memes, cultural viruses that infect individuals and cultures down through the ages, mutating and changing as the "doctrines" morph and change over time.

There were long periods of orthodoxy. 
Comparing Nicaea to the 20th Century version ignores the centuries where the basic doctrines did not change, including the divinity of Jesus. What exactly is different about basic doctrine in Lumen Gentium from the Council of Trent ? It has not always been "a bunch of competing 'memes'. There were long periods where heretics were burned for not espousing orthodoxy. 
What exactly was in "constant flux" in the 5th Century, the 9th Century, the 11th Century, the 13th Century ? From your assertions, you should be able to answers those questions.
If it is/was so chaotic, why is it that virtually all the mainline Christian bodies still recite the Nicaean Creed every Sunday, and have for centuries ? What "flux" did Nicaea incite exactly ?
Constantine told them he did not care what they agreed on, as long as they agreed.

(April 28, 2020 at 11:50 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(April 28, 2020 at 11:44 pm)Jehanne Wrote: There's never been an "orthodox Christianity"; rather, right up to the present day, things have been in a constant flux.  The Council of Nicaea did not change that, but rather fueled it.  You can, for instance, compare Lumen Gentium (in particular, #14)  from the Second Vatican Council to Cantate Domino from the Council of Florence.  I do not know (or, for that matter, really care) what people like Drich believe.  His version of Christianity is one of many, right from the "beginning" (which likely began in the 40s, a decade after Jesus' death) right up to the present day.  The Christian religion(s) is just a bunch of competing memes, cultural viruses that infect individuals and cultures down through the ages, mutating and changing as the "doctrines" morph and change over time.

There were long periods of orthodoxy. 
Comparing Nicaea to the 20th Century version ignores the centuries where the basic doctrines did not change, including the divinity of Jesus. What exactly is different about basic doctrine in Lumen Gentium from the Council of Trent ? It has not always been "a bunch of competing 'memes'. There were long periods where heretics were burned for not espousing orthodoxy. 
What exactly was in "constant flux" in the 5th Century, the 9th Century, the 11th Century, the 13th Century ? From your assertions, you should be able to answers those questions.
If it is/was so chaotic, why is it that virtually all the mainline Christian bodies still recite the Nicaean Creed every Sunday, and have for centuries ? What "flux" did Nicaea incite exactly ?
Constantine told them he did not care what they agreed on, as long as they agreed.

I'll give you just one example, out of many:

Wikipedia -- Filioque

Many other examples exist -- conciliarism, infant baptism (not to mention the eternal fates of infants who die without Baptism), innerancy of the Bible, necessity of explicit faith in Jesus, venial versus mortal sin, eternal security ("Once saved, always saved."), predestination, universal salvation, etc., etc.  As for burning heretics, such as episodic.  Jon Hus was burned at the behest of the Council of Constance under Pope Martin V, but Pope John Paul II, 500 years after Hus' immolation apologized to modern-day Bohemia for his condemnation.  And, so, was Hus a heretic or not?

(April 28, 2020 at 3:50 pm)Drich Wrote:

(April 28, 2020 at 12:15 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Why should I care what Voltaire's opinions on the future were or what happened to his house. There was no way to determine the percentage of atheists around the world in his day, where did you get 3.5% from?

because he was king atheist and started the movement and grandfather the same BS arguments you guys still use. IE if he was wrong about his prediction based on information and an understanding of God you guys still follow then he was wrong about his base beliefs IE you in turn are wrong where your beliefs cross.. Do you people not even understand your origins and shared beliefs?

his house being used  is just insult to his proud proclamation.

There's a big difference between 'noted' and 'king'. Atheism isn't a movement (notwithstanding Conservapedia), although atheists can be part of a movement. There are a lot of atheists in the Skeptical Movement if that's what you're thinking of.

Voltaire not an atheist, noted or otherwise, he was a deist, I think of more note would be Lucilio Vanini, freethinking pantheist executed in 1619 for his supposed atheism by having his tongue cut out and strangling, followed by burning his body. Atheists are more likely to quote Epicurus (341-270 BC), paraphrasing his famous trilemma, than Voltaire.

And you didn't address where you pulled your estimate of 3.5% of the world's population being atheist in the 1700s. I don't know how anyone would have arrived at that number, and it sounds way too high. Are you sure it wasn't just France?

His house being used to store Bibles is typical low-class petty vengeance on the part of the Christians involved. Today it is a museum.

1.Voltaire wasn't an Atheist, And people like Bertrand russell or Hume have far more influence on modern skepticism

2.There is no atheist movement .I sure as hell don't have the same end goals as someone like Sargon of Akkad.

3.Voltaire's house is currently a museum , And i wonder if i should take equal glee in churches being converted into condos and bars .Oh wait no i'm not a petty jerk.

(April 28, 2020 at 4:36 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(April 28, 2020 at 3:50 pm)Drich Wrote: because he was king atheist and started the movement and grandfather the same BS arguments you guys still use. IE if he was wrong about his prediction based on information and an understanding of God you guys still follow then he was wrong about his base beliefs IE you in turn are wrong where your beliefs cross.. Do you people not even understand your origins and shared beliefs?

his house being used  is just insult to his proud proclamation.

---

still 2 as not addressed to me.

Go fuck yourself Drippy. 
Nothing is about you. 
Nothing. 
You have nothing to offer here.
No only have you nothing to offer, you actually CAN'T respond as you have no education in the matters discussed here, (as you prove with this number thing).
Best you watch out, I'll put you on probation, (what a fucking total joke you are).
Get lost. (Before you go, give us all the names you LIED about wanting you banned from AD). LOL

3

---

(April 28, 2020 at 11:44 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 28, 2020 at 3:11 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: It may not be entirely correct with respect to the early communities, but when orthodox Christianity was codified, it is true.

There's never been an "orthodox Christianity";

From the beginning it was never meant to be an orthodox Christianity, as there are no master list of Christian laws, as there were with the Jews. Think about it they just came of a few 1000 years of structured Judaism, the apostles knew how to structure an orthodox religious system. But rather than have one single agree upon book of the law, each epistle to each church is it's own self contain book of law given to a specific region dealing with unique problems. Meaning rules for one church say like the church at Rome need not apply to a more mature church say in Corinth. Rather the church has 2 laws. Love God with all you being and your neighbor as yourself. this would flesh out in different ways for all the different cultures which is why we are told to do our best for God and each other rather than have a set standard some could not meet while out could easily meet the min requirements.

Quote: rather, right up to the present day, things have been in a constant flux.  The Council of Nicea did not change that, but rather fueled it.  You can, for instance, compare Lumen Gentium (in particular, #14)  from the Second Vatican Council to Cantate Domino from the Council of Florence.  I do not know (or, for that matter, really care) what people like Drich believe.  His version of Christianity is one of many, right from the "beginning" (which likely began in the 40s, a decade after Jesus' death) right up to the present day.  The Christian religion(s) is just a bunch of competing memes, cultural viruses that infect individuals and cultures down through the ages, mutating and changing as the "doctrines" morph and evolve over time.

your right, but what you don't understand it was meant to be this way from the beginning to make sure everyone was held to the highest personal standard possible

---

(April 28, 2020 at 11:50 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(April 28, 2020 at 11:44 pm)Jehanne Wrote: There's never been an "orthodox Christianity"; rather, right up to the present day, things have been in a constant flux.  The Council of Nicaea did not change that, but rather fueled it.  You can, for instance, compare Lumen Gentium (in particular, #14)  from the Second Vatican Council to Cantate Domino from the Council of Florence.  I do not know (or, for that matter, really care) what people like Drich believe.  His version of Christianity is one of many, right from the "beginning" (which likely began in the 40s, a decade after Jesus' death) right up to the present day.  The Christian religion(s) is just a bunch of competing memes, cultural viruses that infect individuals and cultures down through the ages, mutating and changing as the "doctrines" morph and change over time.

There were long periods of orthodoxy. 
Comparing Nicaea to the 20th Century version ignores the centuries where the basic doctrines did not change, including the divinity of Jesus. What exactly is different about basic doctrine in Lumen Gentium from the Council of Trent ? It has not always been "a bunch of competing 'memes'. There were long periods where heretics were burned for not espousing orthodoxy. 
What exactly was in "constant flux" in the 5th Century, the 9th Century, the 11th Century, the 13th Century ? From your assertions, you should be able to answers those questions.
If it is/was so chaotic, why is it that virtually all the mainline Christian bodies still recite the Nicaean Creed every Sunday, and have for centuries ? What "flux" did Nicaea incite exactly ?
Constantine told them he did not care what they agreed on, as long as they agreed.

still 3

---

(April 29, 2020 at 12:16 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 28, 2020 at 11:50 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: There were long periods of orthodoxy. 
Comparing Nicaea to the 20th Century version ignores the centuries where the basic doctrines did not change, including the divinity of Jesus. What exactly is different about basic doctrine in Lumen Gentium from the Council of Trent ? It has not always been "a bunch of competing 'memes'. There were long periods where heretics were burned for not espousing orthodoxy. 
What exactly was in "constant flux" in the 5th Century, the 9th Century, the 11th Century, the 13th Century ? From your assertions, you should be able to answers those questions.
If it is/was so chaotic, why is it that virtually all the mainline Christian bodies still recite the Nicaean Creed every Sunday, and have for centuries ? What "flux" did Nicaea incite exactly ?
Constantine told them he did not care what they agreed on, as long as they agreed.

I'll give you just one example, out of many:

Wikipedia -- Filioque

Many other examples exist -- conciliarism, infant baptism (not to mention the eternal fates of infants who die without Baptism), innerancy of the Bible, necessity of explicit faith in Jesus, venial versus mortal sin, eternal security ("Once saved, always saved."), predestination, universal salvation, etc., etc.  As for burning heretics, such as episodic.  Jon Hus was burned at the behest of the Council of Constance under Pope Martin V, but Pope John Paul II, 500 years after Hus' immolation apologized to modern-day Bohemia for his condemnation.  And, so, was Hus a heretic or not?

1 the bible itself never claims innerancy. the doctrine of sola scriptura was added to refute papal authority to change scripture/doctrine.

2 the bible never demands infants be baptized.

3 the bible never identifies or specifically outlines the doctrine of original sin, this was an adopted Greek philosophy. the bible identifies us as slaves the opposite of freewill.

4 the bible never identifies venial sin or mortal sin as the doctrine of mortal sin teaches rather all sin is mortal. Jesus himself literally teach all sin are equal in God's eyes. the polar opposite of this teaching.

5 the bible does teach once saved always saved, but if you read the bible salvation is always discussed as a future event. IE we are not saved by any action we can do in this life, rather we are saved at the point of our judgement, as a gift from God that no one should boast. So from judgement on, we are always saved.

6 God save those in whom he wants saved. it is not a matter of religious power to force God into salvation because you are of this church or that church. Salvation if the prerogative Of Jesus The Christ. So it is not a matter of predestination or universal salvation as both of these take the desision making from God and gives it to the church. (you want to be save follow this doctrine) no. no where in the bible does this play out. Jesus the Christ Per heb 4 decides
12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

"the word being the very word of John 1:1/Jesus"

7 nothing in the bible demands we burn anyone. rather we forgive them, and such command is that of a church state and not of the bionically accurate worship of God.

8 1 the bible never identifies what a heretic is. The worst anyone can be is a blasphemer in the bible and Christ himself says there is forgiveness for blaspheming him and the Father but not the holy Spirit. that said he never authorities anyone to harm even a blasphemer of the holy Spirit the one sin that can not be forgiven.

(April 29, 2020 at 10:47 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(April 28, 2020 at 3:50 pm)Drich Wrote: because he was king atheist and started the movement and grandfather the same BS arguments you guys still use. IE if he was wrong about his prediction based on information and an understanding of God you guys still follow then he was wrong about his base beliefs IE you in turn are wrong where your beliefs cross.. Do you people not even understand your origins and shared beliefs?

his house being used  is just insult to his proud proclamation.

There's a big difference between 'noted' and 'king'. Atheism isn't a movement (notwithstanding Conservapedia), although atheists can be part of a movement. There are a lot of atheists in the Skeptical Movement if that's what you're thinking of.

Voltaire not an atheist, noted or otherwise, he was a deist, I think of more note would be Lucilio Vanini, freethinking pantheist executed in 1619 for his supposed atheism by having his tongue cut out and strangling, followed by burning his body. Atheists are more likely to quote Epicurus (341-270 BC), paraphrasing his famous trilemma, than Voltaire.

And you didn't address where you pulled your estimate of 3.5% of the world's population being atheist in the 1700s. I don't know how anyone would have arrived at that number, and it sounds way too high. Are you sure it wasn't just France?

His house being used to store Bibles is typical low-class petty vengeance on the part of the Christians involved. Today it is a museum.

So there is that says you are pulling info on voltare out of you bum...

Voltaire expressed his contempt towards organized religion and its disregard for human suffering in his famous satirical novel, Candide.  He targeted Leibnitz’s teaching that  “all is for the best” by creating characters that fall into miserable situations and face both internal and external strife by attempting to fit it into the church’s world view.[1] The only place free from Voltaire’s critiques was a made up New World town known as El Dorado where the only religion is an appreciation for life and nature.[2] El Dorado represented Voltaire’s perfect society  and provided insight into how he would have preferred society in Europe to be structured. Even though efforts to reform the Church were brought forward through Calvinism and the Council of Trent, Voltaire shows disdain for the major principles of organized religion in the 18th century. Although, like the Council of Trent, John Calvin’s beliefs carried the principle that all is for the best, which did align with Voltaire’s criticisms by pointing out that the Church should serve society rather than hold themselves in a dignified higher place and criticized the strict adherence to sacraments and Christian ritual.
https://www.armstrong.edu/history-journa...in-candide

and this quote:
The influential figure of Voltaire, spread deistic notions of to a wide audience. "After the French Revolution and its outbursts of atheism, Voltaire was widely condemned as one of the causes", wrote Blainey, "Nonetheless, his writings did concede that fear of God was an essential policeman in a disorderly world: 'If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him', wrote Voltaire".[64] Voltaire wrote this in response to Treatise of the Three Impostors, a document (most likely) authored by John Toland that denied all three Abrahamic religions.[65]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism

my number of 3.5 % is based off the number of people who lived 100 years approx after voltare's death he died 1778 so in 1878 there were approx 1.6 billion people on the planet 3.2 million were non religious 3.1 agnostic 225,000 are God haters. that's 7.5 million out of 1.6 billion is about 3.5% if you also take out the unevanglized/people who never heard of God which was estimated to be 53% or 880,000,000 back then. which leaves us with 720,000,000 and you guys with 7.5 million. which is honestly 1.5% (i honestly did the math guesstimate based on christian to atheist not world population forgive me for rushing you answer out.)

https://www.gordonconwell.edu/center-for...y-2020.pdf


 

---

(April 29, 2020 at 11:19 am)SUNGULA Wrote: 1.Voltaire wasn't an Atheist, And people like Bertrand russell or Hume have far more influence on modern skepticism

2.There is no atheist movement .I sure as hell don't have the same end goals as someone like Sargon of Akkad.

3.Voltaire's house is currently a museum , And i wonder if i should take equal glee in churches being converted into condos and bars .Oh wait no i'm not a petty jerk.

again voltare was an atheist his own quotes and stance against the church proove that see some of the other quotes i posted.

2 there is an atheist movement educate your self fool before you speak. there is even a national convention every year:
https://www.conservapedia.com/Atheist_movement

3 it is a museum but it is also the head quarters of the Geneva bible society world head quarters.
https://www.scribd.com/document/33127426...le-society

Yes Voltaire hated organized religion that's not the same as  not believing in god and weather Voltaire caused a widespread notion of atheism is aside the point .As he was himself not an atheist so MA is still right.And the est is just you playing amature anthopologist

Quote:Like other key Enlightenment thinkers, Voltaire was a deist.[128] He challenged orthodoxy by asking: "What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason."[129][130]
In a 1763 essay, Voltaire supported the toleration of other religions and ethnicities: "It does not require great art, or magnificently trained eloquence, to prove that Christians should tolerate each other. I, however, am going further: I say that we should regard all men as our brothers. What? The Turk my brother? The Chinaman my brother? The Jew? The Siam? Yes, without doubt; are we not all children of the same father and creatures of the same God?"[131]
In one of his many denunciations of priests of every religious sect, Voltaire describes them as those who "rise from an incestuous bed, manufacture a hundred versions of God, then eat and drink God, then piss and shit God."[132]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire#Religious_views

---

Quote:again voltare was an atheist his own quotes and stance against the church proove that see some of the other quotes i posted.

Being opposed to organized religion does not make you an atheist and that's all your posts prove 

Quote:Like other key Enlightenment thinkers, Voltaire was a deist.[128] He challenged orthodoxy by asking: "What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason."[129][130]
In a 1763 essay, Voltaire supported the toleration of other religions and ethnicities: "It does not require great art, or magnificently trained eloquence, to prove that Christians should tolerate each other. I, however, am going further: I say that we should regard all men as our brothers. What? The Turk my brother? The Chinaman my brother? The Jew? The Siam? Yes, without doubt; are we not all children of the same father and creatures of the same God?"[131]
In one of his many denunciations of priests of every religious sect, Voltaire describes them as those who "rise from an incestuous bed, manufacture a hundred versions of God, then eat and drink God, then piss and shit God."[132]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire#Religious_views

Quote:Such skepticism often acted as bulwark for Voltaire's defense of liberty since he argued that no authority, no matter how sacred, should be immune to challenge by critical reason. Voltaire's views on religion as manifest in his private writings are complex, and based on the evidence of these texts it would be wrong to call Voltaire an atheist, or even an anti-Christian so long as one accepts a broad understanding of what Christianity can entail. But even if his personal religious views were subtle, Voltaire was unwavering in his hostility to church authority and the power of the clergy. For similar reasons, he also grew as he matured ever more hostile toward the sacred mysteries upon which monarchs and Old Regime aristocratic society based their authority. In these cases, Voltaire's skepticism was harnessed to his libertarian convictions through his continual effort to use critical reason as a solvent for these “superstitions” and the authority they anchored. The philosophical authority of romanciers such as Descartes, Malebranche, and Leibniz was similarly subjected to the same critique, and here one sees how the defense of skepticism and liberty, more than any deeply held opposition to religiosity per se, was often the most powerful motivator for Voltaire.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voltaire/#Ske

Quote:2 there is an atheist movement educate your self fool before you speak. there is even a national convention every year:

The Existence of a conference  does not make atheism a movement .

Quote:3 it is a museum but it is also the head quarters of the Geneva bible society world head quarters.

Disputed 

Quote:Furthermore, it is not true that any of his houses were ever used for a Bible society. It’s a great sermon illustration. It leaves people in awe at the power of God. But it’s simply not historically accurate.

What is true is that the Hotel Gibbon which Voltaire often frequented became a depository of the Bible Society* in 1849. But that is it. Not quite as good of a sermon illustration. And so, like any good fishing story, the catch has gotten a little bigger over the year

http://www.mikeleake.net/2013/05/what-ca...taire.html

(April 29, 2020 at 1:41 pm)SUNGULA Wrote: Yes Voltaire hated organized religion that's not the same as  not believing in god and weather Voltaire caused a widespread notion of atheism is aside the point .As he was himself not an atheist so MA is still right.And the est is just you playing amature anthopologist

sorry sport i studied this guy. he was mockingly a deist because he did not have the balls to wear the social stigma that came with being labeled an atheist back then. one could be ban from shops public services like police protection and even having been accused of dark magic. deism was the safest thing this guy could align himself with ans still carry out his attacks on god and the church as his 'nod to god' came in the way of a naturalism where he assigned the title to fit the engine that ran the natural world. IE god to him was not a deity but more of a source of power or energy. Plus on his death bed he refused God stating he at this point would not want to make any more enemies.

Quote:Being opposed to organized religion does not make you an atheist and that's all your posts prove 

being apposed to God does. most of you are not atheist by definition either you all share more with voltare than you will ever admit in that you hate God, not that you do not believe in him. people who do not believe do not waist their time arguing for years over their same points. this is hatred that fuels this passion.
Whatever you want to call voltare he is the father of the movement now known as atheism.

Quote:Like other key Enlightenment thinkers, Voltaire was a deist.[128] He challenged orthodoxy by asking: "What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason."[129][130]
In a 1763 essay, Voltaire supported the toleration of other religions and ethnicities: "It does not require great art, or magnificently trained eloquence, to prove that Christians should tolerate each other. I, however, am going further: I say that we should regard all men as our brothers. What? The Turk my brother? The Chinaman my brother? The Jew? The Siam? Yes, without doubt; are we not all children of the same father and creatures of the same God?"[131]
In one of his many denunciations of priests of every religious sect, Voltaire describes them as those who "rise from an incestuous bed, manufacture a hundred versions of God, then eat and drink God, then piss and shit God."[132]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire#Religious_views
globb. that is not the proper 1763 quote.
The following is the proper quote:
It does not require great art, or magnificently trained eloquence, to prove that Christians should tolerate each other. I, however, am going further: I say that we should regard all men as our brothers. What? The Turk my brother? The Chinaman my brother? The Jew? The Siam? Yes, without doubt; are we not all children of the same father and creatures of the same God?
But these people despise us; they treat us as idolaters! Very well! I will tell them that they are grievously wrong. It seems to me that I would at least astonish the proud, dogmatic Islam imam or Buddhist priest, if I spoke to them as follows:
"This little globe, which is but a point, rolls through space, as do many other globes; we are lost in the immensity of the universe. Man, only five feet high, is assuredly only a small thing in creation. One of these imperceptible beings says to another one of his neighbors, in Arabia or South Africa: 'Listen to me, because God of all these worlds has enlightened me: there are nine hundred million little ants like us on the earth, but my ant-hole is the only one dear to God; all the other are cast off by Him for eternity; mine alone will be happy, and all the others will be eternally damned."
They would then interrupt me, and ask which fool blabbed all this nonsense. I would be obliged to answer, "You, yourselves." I would then endeavor to calm them, which would be very difficult.

The dude is making fun of Buddhist and Muslims. As everything i just quoted is his version of a over simplifies summary of what he thinks they believe, and when he serves it to them in this way, he mocks their preceived response. 
This is what you 'good people' do all the time.

 Not siding with them. here is a link to a legit copy of the 1763 tretis:
https://web.archive.org/web/200601070138...taire.html

Quote:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voltaire/#Ske

I do not need a commentator to think for me. i have spent time in the study of voltare which is why i can run through you guys like water through single ply toilet paper. I understand your foundations even if you do not.

Quote:3 it is a museum but it is also the head quarters of the Geneva bible society world head quarters.

Disputed 

here sport.. this is a map from town town genva to the actual house:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Geneva,+...d46.207642

here is the recorded history of the house:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_D%C3%A9lices

here is a link to the bible society so you can scheduled a tour and buy a bible at their gift shop.
https://www.bible-society.org/

doesn't seem disputed to me, unless you mean to say it is shut down at this moment due to covid-19

Quote:Furthermore, it is not true that any of his houses were ever used for a Bible society. It’s a great sermon illustration. It leaves people in awe at the power of God. But it’s simply not historically accurate.

What is true is that the Hotel Gibbon which Voltaire often frequented became a depository of the Bible Society* in 1849. But that is it. Not quite as good of a sermon illustration. And so, like any good fishing story, the catch has gotten a little bigger over the year

http://www.mikeleake.net/2013/05/what-ca...taire.html
[/quote]
that looks like a sore butt lie.

You got turn by turn direction from google maps from down town to the house, you got the history of the house from wiki and you got the website to where you can tour the house and visit the bible center headquarters and even buy a bible.

All you link proves is if you wish to bury you head in the sand the internet will allow you to borrow a shovel