Quote:It's not "some" Christians but religious orders and clergy who had slaves.

Uh huh; which made up in Europe about 15% of the population and globally in the single digit %s; which was even during this "Catholic" period divided between different sects and orders with *vastly* different opinions on issues both secular and theological.

Quote:And that is the only "freedom" that Christianity offered to slaves: when they died they will be free in heaven living with god, but till then they had to obey their owners and turn the other cheek when getting beaten.

So anything bad is automatically, unequivocally linked to Christianity; even if a single % point was involved in it and it ran contradictory to thousands of years of Christian doctrine.

Conversely, anything good cannot be linked to Christianity; even if the majority of Christians agreed with it, it had been confirmed by authorities for thousands of years, and is consistent with Christian theological belief, it cannot be attributed to Christianity.

That's irrational.

Don't go getting emotional now.

Quote:Uh huh; which made up in Europe about 15% of the population and globally in the single digit %s; which was even during this "Catholic" period divided between different sects and orders with *vastly* different opinions on issues both secular and theological.

15%, 45% , 75% it's all irrelevant they owned slaves period and using the excuse of secular and theological division as a wiggle out doesn't help you. The clergy owned slaves that's reflective of Christianity as a whole. 

Quote:So anything bad is automatically, unequivocally linked to Christianity; even if a single % point was involved in it and it ran contradictory to thousands of years of Christian doctrine.

Actions speak louder then words. If your doctrine says one thing and petitioners do something else then I'm sorry your going to be judged by the actions . Because words are cheap and easy. 

Quote:Conversely, anything good cannot be linked to Christianity; even if the majority of Christians agreed with it, it had been confirmed by authorities for thousands of years, and is consistent with Christian theological belief, it cannot be attributed to Christianity.

Nope to contrary if Christians had never owned slaves . Not a single used the bible to justify slavery. If no Christians ever adopted serfdom or indentured servitude systems were every bit as wrong as slavery and went out of it's way to retain those principles then Christianity should be judge by that. But that's not what happened.     

Quote:That's irrational.

Nope totally rational you just don't like it because you know your religion falls short.

(November 9, 2024 at 3:53 pm)TheWhiteMarten Wrote:

(November 9, 2024 at 3:48 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: They objectively and categorically are, thumby, and I’ll stop calling you ‘delusional’ when you stop being deluded. Don’t hold your breath.

Boru

Was afraid of this.

Welp, on ignore you go as well - I was hoping you could at least be rational on non-political topics, but here we fucking are...

A serf was granted certain rights and freedoms a slave is not; a serf is also not viewed as property of an individual but rather tied to the land, making them at a fundamental level *not* a slave.


If you cant even agree to use the English language without insisting that you hold sole-exclusive rite to dictate it's meanings - as I have seen multiple times now on this forum - then there is no purpose in communicating.

YAY!!!

Boru

(November 9, 2024 at 5:30 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(November 9, 2024 at 3:53 pm)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: Was afraid of this.

Welp, on ignore you go as well - I was hoping you could at least be rational on non-political topics, but here we fucking are...

A serf was granted certain rights and freedoms a slave is not; a serf is also not viewed as property of an individual but rather tied to the land, making them at a fundamental level *not* a slave.


If you cant even agree to use the English language without insisting that you hold sole-exclusive rite to dictate it's meanings - as I have seen multiple times now on this forum - then there is no purpose in communicating.

YAY!!!

Boru

Welcome to the club of people this moron is afraid of because he knows he can't argue against you.

Right, I'm pretty sure I explicitly stated that you cannot have a conversation when your opponent refuses to follow the rules of the English language.

You cannot have an argument when your opponent can only use fallacies and irrational arguments.

Proverbial pigeon on the chessboard, except the pigeon at least behaves only as a base animal simply carrying out basic biological impulses.

(November 9, 2024 at 5:46 pm)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: Right, I'm pretty sure I explicitly stated that you cannot have a conversation when your opponent refuses to follow the rules of the English language.

You cannot have an argument when your opponent can only use fallacies and irrational arguments.

Proverbial pigeon on the chessboard, except the pigeon at least behaves only as a base animal simply carrying out basic biological impulses.

They’re also quite tasty. The pigeons, I mean.

Boru

Quote:Right, I'm pretty sure I explicitly stated that you cannot have a conversation when your opponent refuses to follow the rules of the English language.

Nah he followed it fine you just sucked at conversing  and you  want to make excuses for it. 

Quote:You cannot have an argument when your opponent can only use fallacies and irrational arguments.

Nah you simply can't argue period nothing he said was fallacious or irrational  you simply suck.

Quote:Proverbial pigeon on the chessboard, except the pigeon at least behaves only as a base animal simply carrying out basic biological impulses

Nah the pigeon is you here it's always you here and at least the  pigeon  doesn't make excuses for why it keeps losing then cowers behind the ignore button.

(November 9, 2024 at 6:00 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(November 9, 2024 at 5:46 pm)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: Right, I'm pretty sure I explicitly stated that you cannot have a conversation when your opponent refuses to follow the rules of the English language.

You cannot have an argument when your opponent can only use fallacies and irrational arguments.

Proverbial pigeon on the chessboard, except the pigeon at least behaves only as a base animal simply carrying out basic biological impulses.

They’re also quite tasty. The pigeons, I mean.

Boru

They are it's sad they get such a bad reputation as a food source.

(November 9, 2024 at 6:00 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(November 9, 2024 at 5:46 pm)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: Right, I'm pretty sure I explicitly stated that you cannot have a conversation when your opponent refuses to follow the rules of the English language.

You cannot have an argument when your opponent can only use fallacies and irrational arguments.

Proverbial pigeon on the chessboard, except the pigeon at least behaves only as a base animal simply carrying out basic biological impulses.

They’re also quite tasty. The pigeons, I mean.

Boru

Is there even anything salvageable after the ban hammer hits it?