Catholic christian.

Gonna had some things to the topic - although i stopped following it on page 20.
It`s really a shame to see here people make fun of other people`s views with direct insults or sarcasm. I find it hard to understand why people judge religions for their past like it is it`s present.  If you are expecting religions to be perfect, it`s not gonna happen. Humans are what make them imperfect. We were given everything. It`s our fault when we can`t show it for what it truly is.
If you are going to "dissect" religion don`t rationalize it too much. Faith is a very important part of any religion and something that explains "in person" what religions actually are and why they exist to this day.

If you read carefully there`s a lot of animosity towards religions and belief in general. Curious, right?

Did you forget to respond?

You'll get used to it on this web site. But just ignore them. But do not in any way insult any other beleif system except christian. its a religois intolerance. Just let them be. I mean, if our beleif is wrong, nothing happens, we die and its lights out. If they are wrong however...

You'll get used to it on this web site. But just ignore them. But do not in any way insult any other beleif system except christian. its a religois intolerance. Just let them be. I mean, if our beleif is wrong, nothing happens, we die and its lights out. If they are wrong however...

You're assuming that you're only wrong about whether or not a deity exists. Pascals wager doesn't work because it is weighted as a 50/50 chance, either you're right about god or there isn't one. But it leaves out that there are thousands of gods and thousands of beliefs, and even within a single religious order there are numerous disagreements about how that specific god or gods want to be worshipped.

If you were simply going to make a wager, the pragmatic approach would be you should either go all in figuring that it's unlikely you'll pick the correct god AND the correct method of pleasing him, and instead just live your life hoping that if you're wrong, the god that does exist is the kind that will judge you for your deeds and not judge you for arbitrary demands. So you win even if you don't believe in him. Or go the other direction and hedge your bet by picking whoever is the most unmerciful, hateful, vicious, punitive and punishing god, and suck up to his ass like there is no tomorrow. Because if there is a loving god that isn't arbitrary in his demands (don't be gay, pray seven times a day facing mecca, believe in me alone), but is genuinely loving then you're good either way. But if the actual god is wrathful and unmerciful, then you need to be on his good side or else there is going to be torments worse than hellfire in your future.

I obviously go with the first option, seems more rewarding than living a life sucking up to Cthulu, or ancient gods to appease them. But even then it's not because it's statistically smart, it's because there isn't any good reason to believe in any of these elder gods of ancient tribes.

You're assuming that you're only wrong about whether or not a deity exists. Pascals wager doesn't work because it is weighted as a 50/50 chance, either you're right about god or there isn't one. But it leaves out that there are thousands of gods and thousands of beliefs, and even within a single religious order there are numerous disagreements about how that specific god or gods want to be worshipped.

If you were simply going to make a wager, the pragmatic approach would be you should either go all in figuring that it's unlikely you'll pick the correct god AND the correct method of pleasing him, and instead just live your life hoping that if you're wrong, the god that does exist is the kind that will judge you for your deeds and not judge you for arbitrary demands. So you win even if you don't believe in him. Or go the other direction and hedge your bet by picking whoever is the most unmerciful, hateful, vicious, punitive and punishing god, and suck up to his ass like there is no tomorrow. Because if there is a loving god that isn't arbitrary in his demands (don't be gay, pray seven times a day facing mecca, believe in me alone), but is genuinely loving then you're good either way. But if the actual god is wrathful and unmerciful, then you need to be on his good side or else there is going to be torments worse than hellfire in your future.

I obviously go with the first option, seems more rewarding than living a life sucking up to Cthulu, or ancient gods to appease them. But even then it's not because it's statistically smart, it's because there isn't any good reason to believe in any of these elder gods of ancient tribes.

Also all religious faith is being questioned and held up to be scrutinized by the rational, not just your pet interpretation of your personal one. And That is not even close to persecution, go read some history books to learn what religious persecution looks like (it's considerably more violent and disturbing than sarcasm on the internet, or democratic political legislation to make a more religiously nuetral government environment). And two, it goes for all faiths. It's just that alot of religions excel in persecution complexes, which leads to confirmation bias that clearly they are being singled out, just as was foretold in every holy book ever written by any person claiming to be a prophet. It's just "us vs them" conditioning to strengthen the tribe.

"Your enemies will rise up against you and your kind, and speak out against you and your way of life!"

"There are people that actively disagree with me, just like the prophets of yore said they would! Now I know I'm right!" ect ect.

@pizzahut451:

I do have a life outside this forum, you know?

Really? Lol, how you get all worked up over something like that

The Church was the religion. Therefore the religion forbade education.

The church is a religious institiution, not the religion itself. Seriously, are you doing this on purpose? Because i beleive5 year old child woud know the diffrence between the 2.

|It's to be debated whether Jesus wanted to be worshipped and to form a religion in the first place. As for the twisting, after all this time whatever Christianity was meant to represent is forgotten.

Christianity is based on Christ s teachings and if he said he is a son of God, i believe he wanted to form a new religion. Something like the New Testament - which is what Christianity is based onIf you hate christianity with such passion, at least learn a thing or 2 basic things about it

No, now they're actually running a car wash business actually (not joking), among other things.

Car washing doesnt really harm people does it?

Actually the Russian Orthodox Church directly participates in state matters. They even have a representative in the Senate I beleive.

But it doesnt run the country. Russia is a secular country, and as such the orthodox church doesnt run, and as such, its not in position to make laws, and much less persecute the people who dont follow thier religion.

This makes no sense. The countries you mentioned are Islamic theocracies, not secular countries. Heck, Saudi Arabia's "constitution" is the Koran.

I apologize, i must have made a writing mistake when i typed secular. I meant a religion state. All those countries are religion states where the religion is in charge and yet none of those countries have problem with UN agaisnt the human rights and freedom of religion. Do you honestly beleive being an open christian in Saudi Arabia is illegal?

They were Muslims regardless (their religion, and their education).

But they were still Europeans, which was my contra argument on your un educated europans claim.

Christ's teachings can be interpreted in various ways. Also, since Christ never actually wrote anything, there's no proof "his teachings" are actually "his teachings".

Ever heard of hsi apostles? They were pretty much next to Jesus his whole life on Earth, they spread his religion all across Europe. Considerin they were the friends and brothers of Christ, i highly beleive they would lie about him and decieve him. (except Judas, of course, which is said that the devil was dwelwing withing him, but that is just the myth)

Actually it's a well documented fact that Christians were largely illiterate 'till the Protestant Reformation (they actually cared about education, as they considered that all people needed to be able to read religious texts). Most Christians didn't need to know how to read, and only the clergy would learn during the Middle Ages.  Muslims had schools were people were obligated to go, so most of them were literate (people were encouraged to study religious texts over there, so they needed to know how to read). I could scan you my texts from Uni, but they're in Romanian. You can do research about this by yourself, if you won't take my word for it.

Like i said before, lots of educated and smart christians  were hiding from the church so there is no record of many europeans being educated in the history. And the ones that were in the public got persecuted and killed. Muslims had a much larger freddom of research and thinking than christians, so of course people think they were way more educated and advances

I didnt say they werent responsible for colonisation of Americas, i said their religion, Christianity, had very little to nothing to do with it. Dont twist words

They considered it their duty to invade and convert the natives. The fact that the natives were pagans also made killing them easier.

No, stop tryin to drag religion into this. Americans was the new discoverd land, just waitning to get plunderd and conquerd. People that were fightin there did so for money, wealth, slaves and rulership. it was only after the Americans got defeated religion came in the story. And compared to the invaders, the christian missionairies were angles. They thought people to write and read, gave them food and shelter and gave them their medicine (ironicllly, for the illnes they themselfes brought, but the point stands)

I've let go of this debate a month ago (LOL).

So why do you keep coming back to it than?

You're assuming that you're only wrong about whether or not a deity exists. Pascals wager doesn't work because it is weighted as a 50/50 chance, either you're right about god or there isn't one. But it leaves out that there are thousands of gods and thousands of beliefs, and even within a single religious order there are numerous disagreements about how that specific god or gods want to be worshipped.

If you were simply going to make a wager, the pragmatic approach would be you should either go all in figuring that it's unlikely you'll pick the correct god AND the correct method of pleasing him, and instead just live your life hoping that if you're wrong, the god that does exist is the kind that will judge you for your deeds and not judge you for arbitrary demands. So you win even if you don't believe in him. Or go the other direction and hedge your bet by picking whoever is the most unmerciful, hateful, vicious, punitive and punishing god, and suck up to his ass like there is no tomorrow. Because if there is a loving god that isn't arbitrary in his demands (don't be gay, pray seven times a day facing mecca, believe in me alone), but is genuinely loving then you're good either way. But if the actual god is wrathful and unmerciful, then you need to be on his good side or else there is going to be torments worse than hellfire in your future.

I obviously go with the first option, seems more rewarding than living a life sucking up to Cthulu, or ancient gods to appease them. But even then it's not because it's statistically smart, it's because there isn't any good reason to believe in any of these elder gods of ancient tribes.

Also all religious faith is being questioned and held up to be scrutinized by the rational, not just your pet interpretation of your personal one. And That is not even close to persecution, go read some history books to learn what religious persecution looks like (it's considerably more violent and disturbing than sarcasm on the internet, or democratic political legislation to make a more religiously nuetral government environment). And two, it goes for all faiths. It's just that alot of religions excel in persecution complexes, which leads to confirmation bias that clearly they are being singled out, just as was foretold in every holy book ever written by any person claiming to be a prophet. It's just "us vs them" conditioning to strengthen the tribe.

"Your enemies will rise up against you and your kind, and speak out against you and your way of life!"

"There are people that actively disagree with me, just like the prophets of yore said they would! Now I know I'm right!" ect ect.

@pizzahut451:

The Church represents the institution. And a religion doesn't have independent existence.

the religion has its message to the world, and the religion is based on that message. In this case, those messages are teachings of Christ.

When did he say that? Did he say it in writing? Or is that what the fanatocs who followed him everywhere said? Did he say he wanted to form a new religion? Or did the fanatics who followed him everywhere wanted to do that?

He said that in the Bible, which was written by his apostles, the people he considerd his borthers. T

They're not taxed for it, so they're harming the economy.

Lots of things are not taxed in, doesnt mean the church is evil like you are pretending to be.

It participates in running the country, something which doesn't happen in a country that calls itself secular.

Russia doesnt persecute the religous minority in that country, which was your point before. You said Christian church is opressing people who dont share their religion, because it runs the law. russia is internationally recognised as a secular country (I even provided a link for that) and thus the church cant make any laws on minorities.

In Saudi Arabia Christians are treated the way the Koran says they should be treated. They don't have equal rights to muslims (they' essentially second class citizens), and that's just regarding Christians and Jews. Atheists or people of non-Abrahamic religions cannot practice their beliefs over there.

Does the Koran says they should treat Christians like that? Mind giving me a direct quote in context saying that? Also, Christinas in Saudi Arabia are still allowed to be christian as long as they dont go agaisnt their law, which doesnt limit their freedom of religion.

They were Muslims (their religion) and they were educated by Muslims. Had they lived in a Chrisitan country they wouldn't have benefited from that education.

Had they lived under the rule of church they woldn't have benifited from the freedom of education the people had in Iberia...BIG diffrence.

They were fanatics, who made up fantastic stories about him (unless he contributed to that also). Don't you know how cults work?

Do you know how fanatics work? Fanatics go around forcing thier ideas on eachother. Jesus was striclty against any kind of violence. His people spreaded his beleifs tro out eastern Europe. As for ''made up stories'' you have absoultely zero evidence to make such a statemnet. I believe all stories of Christ are true, and not a single evidence suggests otherwise.

How could Christians be educated if there were no schools were people could be tought? The only intellectuals in Christian Europe back then were part of the clergy. They were the only ones who had access to education. Everyone else was illiterate, as it was considered that they didn't need to be educated. They were sheep who needed to be guided.

Yet there were edcuated ones who didnt share their knowledge to the public out of fear from church. And yes, there were tons of schhols during the middle ages in europ.e Heck, Christian Byzantine Empire had an established schooling system beginning at the primary level. According to Traditions and Encounters, the founding of the primary education system began in 425 A.D. and "... military personnel usually had at least a primary education ...". The sometimes efficient and often large government of the Empire meant that educated citizens were a must.    

I

Those people already had their own languages and writing styles, which the Christian missionaries destroyed. They also had food and shelter (the Aztecs had larger and better built cities than anything in Europe), and the Europeans brought all the diseases over there (they actually used them as methods to defeat them). And the Christian missionaries were stongly tied to the Conquistadores (who do you think bought them there in the first place), and they actively helped them in their war against the natives by instiganting civil wars and destroying the natives from within. Plus, the Church had a stake in all the riches that were bought back obviously. They considered themselves to be "Christ's soldiers" who's duty was to force Christianity on the world.

Hell no, they didnt. They primary goal was to take as much as land, money and slaves as they can. They didnt give 2 shits about them not being christian. Do you honestly thing, that if the new land was discoverd, bigger than all of Europe, lots of gold and people to posess that has little to no defence at all, the Conquistadores wouldnt try and take that land if the people there wre Christian. Hell, most of wars in Europe were christian country vs. christian country. The convertion to Christianity happend after the vicotrious side was alredy know in the conquest of South America. Colonization and mass murdering happend for whole other reasons than Christianity. But I knwo you'll never want to understand that, simply due to hatered.

And not reply to you? No, that would just not be polite.

No, it wouldn't be. This is a internet debate lol, we are not having a tea part (eeewwww) If you dont know how to respond or just down wanna respondd, than dont do it. You dont have any duty towards me, so it would not be unpolite. Anyway,  this is the last time I am posting in this thread, if I were you, I wouldnt bother posting back. I quoted and debunked your post literally over 20 tiemes by now, and you either 1.) twisted 2) chnaged or 3) removed the topic from our debate. The original point of this debate was, in case you forgot (which you certanly did) was that spreading christianity in China wouldnt be a bad thing for Chinese people. And now look at what we are arguing on. Something completly unrelated on the original matter. You just used a lot of topic chnaging and cherry picking to mock the Christianity, in comprassion to anything. There is absolutely zero chnace this debate will ever end unless I end it here. Im tired of coming back here every day  or so. But a tleast you admited you were wrong on reconquista part, so thats something.

Bye !