I fucking despise religion

[KichigaiNeko]

Thankyou Zone you just proved my point.

Will dissect this at a latter date sorry mate bit time poor right now.

[Cinjin]

Ah, well...the good news is that the sick fucker is going to burn in hell forever after he dies, but not because he raped and mutilated his own daughter - it"s because he refused to accept Jesus as his personal lord and savior. Right?

Yes well, I can see how you think that's silly. After all, you'll get on your high-horse and tell me not to judge people with lifestyles I disagree with. Hmm... But what I think you've failed to grasp is actually that I don't have a vested interest in judging others at all, that's for God to do not I. Yet here you are, clearly this is someone deserving of your judgement, you feel you have the right to do so, from a place of moral supremacy.

Ummm, yeah, I do have "moral supremacy" over the guy who raped and murdered his own child. I don't think any rational person is going to argue that point. Furthermore, your god has no right to judge anyone based on their morality. Your god holds the all-time title for most atrocities committed by anyone - ever.

Yes, his sins could be forgiven - of course. But if it was up to me he would spend life without parole in gaol, or face the death penalty - that's the debt I believe he owes to society. But that fact doesn't mean he can't or shouldn't come to God, after all Moses was a murderer and he was accepted by God and made a prophet of God.

So? Your god's punishments and mercy are so arbitrary throughout the bible that it doesn't mean jack shit. God forgave King David for adultery and murder without so much as a slap on the wrist. Who did he punish for his sins? David's son. A child who was completely innocent of those actions. And did your god forgive the 42 little children who's great crime was mocking a prophet? Nope. He sent bears to maul them to death. Did he forgive Adam and Eve for eating a lousy piece of fruit? Nope, he condemned all of mankind for it, and later even drowned the entire planet. Oh but wait, when Moses murders a neighbor, god thinks, "hey, that's my kinda guy ... wanna be a prophet?"

Pull your head out of your butt and realize that they're fictional characters you dolt. Hansel and Gretel felt justified in burning a witch alive ...... doesn't mean I'm going to use their story as some kind of guide for my REAL life.

[Aractus]

That wasn't in the arab peninsula, christianity didn't spread there. I recall one christian tribe only in the peninsula during the time of mohammed.

And in his time, the trinity already existed, so he didn't witness the monotheistic christianity -hence ; the roman church rose to power- which meant that any christian allover the world would obey them, and believe in the holly trinity too.

I don't see how mohammad would come up with a monotheistic idea out of a trinity.

That's where you have your facts on Christianity wrong. Christianity is monotheistic. Muslims believe the Bible is true. They believe it has been corrupted, however they cannot back up their claim with textual criticism, the claim is as reliable as claiming that you KNOW Moses wrote Genesis.

The quran is pretty much big, even for educated people like me it takes years to study it. Doesn't that prove in the worst cases, that mohammad was a genius ?

No it doesn't. It proves that Mohammad is a false prophet. He fails every Biblical test of a prophet, and yet claims to be one. False prophets/antichrists are predicted in the Bible:

• 1 Timothy 4:1: Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,

if he made that up, he's a better writer than most writers, a first class philosopher, sometimes a biology expert, and above all a saint who forbids rape, killing, he also came up with modern ideas like "the shoora" or in english "questionnaires" to solve problems, also annihilated racism & proved evolution by telling humans that they all come from the same origin

It's hard to believe that such a man lived btw if you need the verses on any word I wrote just ask, I didn't make that up, I read it in the Quran myself.

Is this in the Quran?

• Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

---

Ummm, yeah, I do have "moral supremacy" over the guy who raped and murdered his own child.

Really? A did you still have it before the arab raped and murdered his child, or did you attain it afterward?

So? Your god's punishments and mercy are so arbitrary throughout the bible that it doesn't mean jack shit.

Yeah well, maybe you want the guy who murdered and raped his child to burn in hell for eternity. Me? I don't wish eternal punishment on anyone, mortal punishment - yes, of course, but not eternal. I'd much rather see someone like him come to God then see him burn in hell. But hey, I'm the hatemongering bigot remember?

[KichigaiNeko]

Re-reading your reply I am convinced you are of a theistic bent, by the fact that you only refer to the bible for your references.

So...I have a spare half hour ...let's see what we can come up with eh??

The Celts were converted during the Roman period and the Anglo Saxon were converted later by missionary activity by the Roman Catholic Church initated by Pope Gregory I in 597. He saw some blond Anglo Saxon slave boys and thought that Anglo sounded a bit like Angel so they should be converted to the true faith. What they did was first convert the Saxon kings to Christianity and then the kings imposed it on their subjects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_Christianity

There wasn't really any forced conversion at the point of a sword save for that incident mentioned by the Venerable Bede in the Isle of Wight. There's no archaeological evidence of a massacre though so it's possible that it didn't happen. I think you have to get to the period of the Crusades to really see the juicy action. But even then initially at least you could say that was in reaction to the conquests of Islam (having conquered about half of the then Christian world) and it may not otherwise have occurred.

Your link provides the spread (via the heirachy of the Anglo-Saxon kings) of a Celtic Christianity and says nothing of the way the peasantry were treated. You might like to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Christianity

Funny how we have a reference? to the many 'sacred groves' being burned or razed so that the "one true religion" can build a church on the site....

This is your 'passive conversion'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_polytheism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druidism

Are the above references to where xtianity got it's 'holly trinity' from?

---

You might like to read this as well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence

---

And another for your reading pleasure Zone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_violence

All statements to the fact that to assume xtianity was passively accepted in Britain and Ireland because of an Anglo-Saxon king and his missus is no different than saying because of Constantine and his missus xtianity was accepted 'passively' on the European continent.

Just like all religions violence, brutality and persecution are the weapons that religion uses to assert itself (and the elite- funny about that) the 'right to rule'

---

Finally Zone, you might like to follow the llinks on this... http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/darkness.html ...page.

It does make for interesting reading.

[KichigaiNeko]

or maybe this

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/britain.html

---

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/1000years.htm

---

And finally here

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/lost-world1.html

[Zone]

I don't think you can compare the spread of early Christianity to the spead of early Islam. There was some degree of destruction of holy pagan sites and sacred trees and that kind of thing, the occasional full localised scale massacre such as the Isle of Wight.

Charlemange cutting down Thors Oak here.




Pagan Vikings looted and burned down Christian monastries and such so it was all one way.

But conversion tended to be voluntary and gradual in time over a number generations. Pagan and Christians lived peacefully together for a number of years and when they didn't it wasn't anything much to do with their religion. A lot of pagans tended to keep a shrine to the old pagan gods and a shrine to Christ to hedge their bets. Some pagans were buried with Christian grave goods such as the burial at Suton Hoo. Real history isn't as black and white as you would like to think it is. You didn't have nice happy nature loving hippy pagans who then got roughed up by evil power hungry Christians, it was more a progression. Take a look at Viking era Christ in the Jelling Stone. He gets the full pagan treatment with the interlacings here, the face of a Viking warrior god.

[Cinjin]

Ummm, yeah, I do have "moral supremacy" over the guy who raped and murdered his own child.

Really? A did you still have it before the arab raped and murdered his child, or did you attain it afterward?

After. If you murder and rape your child I will then hold the moral high ground over you as well. For now, I don't know your mind and your thoughts so, I have to assume we are on equal footing. .....For now.

So? Your god's punishments and mercy are so arbitrary throughout the bible that it doesn't mean jack shit.

Yeah well, maybe you want the guy who murdered and raped his child to burn in hell for eternity. Me? I don't wish eternal punishment on anyone, mortal punishment - yes, of course, but not eternal. I'd much rather see someone like him come to God then see him burn in hell. But hey, I'm the hatemongering bigot remember?

No you're not a hate-mongering bigot. Your god is. In fact you are indeed a far more merciful and forgiving being than your god. You sir, have no desire to burn anyone for all eternity. Your god on the other hand is willing to cast people into hell simply because they didn't recognize his godhood.

[KichigaiNeko]

I don't think you can compare the spread of early Christianity to the spead of early Islam.

Oh course I can, don't be silly

There was some degree of destruction of holy pagan sites and sacred trees and that kind of thing, the occasional full localised scale massacre such as the Isle of Wight.

I find your rhetoric amusing. Words like occasional, some and degree.

Pagan Vikings looted and burned down Christian monastries and such so it was all one way.

Well of course they did, that was where the xtians sotred all their stolen gold...the Norsemen weren't stupid.

But conversion tended to be voluntary and gradual in time over a number generations.

Who has told you this?? Do we have to start with the xtians in Alexandria and their "peaceful" murder of Hypatia and go from there??

Pagan and Christians lived peacefully together for a number of years and when they didn't it wasn't anything much to do with their religion. A lot of pagans tended to keep a shrine to the old pagan gods and a shrine to Christ to hedge their bets. Some pagans were buried with Christian grave goods such as the burial at Suton Hoo. Real history isn't as black and white as you would like to think it is. You didn't have nice happy nature loving hippy pagans who then got roughed up by evil power hungry Christians, it was more a progression. Take a look at Viking era Christ in the Jelling Stone. He gets the full pagan treatment with the interlacings here, the face of a Viking warrior god.

Interesting that this is a Viking piece of art work

Sorry Zone but as far as I have read the xtians in the British Isles stole the then pagan religion lock stock and barrel. The "early xtians" of that island were incompetent in Latin and Greek. And as you say you didn't have nice "hippy dippy xtians" living peacefully with pagans during the same time period, nor were ALL Vikings the "bad Guy" many were just farmers and merchants and the xtians were just as hot for the goods they traded.

[Zone]

Oh course I can, don't be silly

I meant you can't do that and also be correct in a factually historic sense.

I find your rhetoric amusing. Words like occasional, some and degree.

There's always going to someone who gets carried away with barbarious fanatical zeal somewhere. It doesn't mean they they get to be typical of the whole thing. The conversion of Europe and the near East to Christianity was largely peaceful and was mainly through missionary activity rather rather than actual conquest. Now Islam involved military conquest right from the very start rather than something it developed much later. It doesn't mean that all modern Muslims are warmongers but it's historically fair to say.

Well of course they did, that was where the xtians sotred all their stolen gold...the Norsemen weren't stupid.

That was a motive as well, they were particularly after silver used in religious relics and monastries were undefended. But at the raid on Linisfarne monks were drowned in the sea in a mock baptism ceremony which suggests a religious motivation.

Who has told you this??

Books of real history.

Do we have to start with the xtians in Alexandria and their "peaceful" murder of Hypatia and go from there??

There was a small bit of mob violence and book burning once Christianity had become the dominant power in the Roman Empire, but it attained that power peacefully to begin with. The very first Christians were pacifists who wouldn't join the Roman army for example. Christianity spread from the Roman Empire into northern Europe, the Middle East/Asia and Africa peacefully through missionary work.

Sorry Zone but as far as I have read the xtians in the British Isles stole the then pagan religion lock stock and barrel. The "early xtians" of that island were incompetent in Latin and Greek. And as you say you didn't have nice "hippy dippy xtians" living peacefully with pagans during the same time period, nor were ALL Vikings the "bad Guy" many were just farmers and merchants and the xtians were just as hot for the goods they traded.

The pagans who converted to Christianity generally carried on just being farmers and merchants like you say. And the rougher more bloodthirsty pagans and Viking raiders became rougher bloodthirsty Christians. But the fact remains that Christianity wasn't spread by conflict, to any great degree before the time of the Crusades. Even the Crusades were limited in extent compared to the vast empire Islam had carved out for itself, they managed to boot the Moorish Muslims out of Spain for instance.

[Minimalist]

Christianity spread from the Roman Empire into northern Europe, the Middle East/Asia and Africa peacefully through missionary work.

Horseshit.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/tribes.html[/quote]

Once a warrior king embraced 'Christianity' – an adoption of form and formality with little or no regard to content – the warrior aristocracy followed its king. Thus, for example, when Clovis accepted Christ as his new god, he compelled three thousand of his retainers to follow him into the baptismal font.

Among the common tribesmen religious allegiance was not an issue of conscience. This was not an age of individual opinion or preference. When the tribal leadership adopted a new god the tribe followed suit. Not to have done so would have been tantamount to rebellion. When Charlemagne insisted on baptism as the sign of submission, he punished with appalling barbarity any resistance, as when, in cold blood, he beheaded, in a single day, 4500 Saxons at Verden, in 782 AD.

Having adopted Christ as their new god, the warrior aristocracies forced the new faith on their peoples.