New Levels of Low

[Ryantology]

I dont need citations. You DO!

You made a claim that something was in the Bible and then refused to cite chapter and verse when called upon to do so.

No - it is your unsupported special pleading of something nebulous and vague that you really wish was true. But because you cant show hard stats when, where, who, how many...names, dates, (like they do in history books) you have to go with the ambit bluff that usually works when youre surrounded by herd mentality groupies.

It's not. This is all stuff we learned in school. Had you paid attention, you would not have to ask for a single citation. Again, I am not referencing secret, exclusive knowledge. I am referencing what is common knowledge to any high-school graduate. This is all stuff you learn about in seventh and eight grade history classes. What, precisely, am I to cite? It's in every single history book ever written on the relevant subjects.

Because, I mean, are you actually suggesting that Christians were NOT responsible for these things? THAT'S a claim extraordinary enough to warrant some citations.

What you are attempting to do here, in the very height of hypocrisy, is to avoid the point by pretending as if citing sources means anything to you.

I will happily get bible verses for people who commit to reading them and agree (in advance) that they WILL modify their view when proven wrong.

I will read anything that is shown to me. Whether or not my viewpoint will be modified has everything to do with how right you actually are.

You're just trying to avoid admitting that you were full of shit.

Motive, motive, motive!!! Think Ryantology. THINK!
Whose 'cause' is it when humans of the same religion are fighting each other? How does God benefit if all his worshippers are killing each other?

Your god loves death and war?

Theres the tell-tale hallmark of special pleading.
The word "unquestionably''.
Dont question. Just accept.
Why?
Because I said so and everyone knows I'm right so there!

I am not of the opinion that any good can balance out multiple genocides, but I did momentarily forget that you don't think genocides are bad.

Wanna have a formal debate on the topic - Christianity has done more good/harm for humanity?

Nope.

Strangely, thats the exact OPPOSITE of how you get an idea to gain acceptance. How bad must an idea be if the only way you cvan get people to say they like it is by totalitarian brute force. (eg. Atheistic Communism.)

Then, why was Christianity just one of a thousand insignificant cults until Constantine?

Grab one of those history books you were going on about and see how monumentally UNsuccessful Tomas de Torquemada was.

How about we look at the how the forced conversions of natives has led to a very Catholic South America?

Read up on the rapid rise of Christianity IN SPITE of the attempts to persecute it out of existence.

Again, the rapid rise had much to do with the leader of one of the world's most powerful empires adopting the faith and mandating that his empire share it with him. The spectacle of rulers adopting Christianity on behalf of their peoples was a common occurrence in the following centuries. It was not the result of populist zeal in the face of oppression.