''the fact shows that you are wrong'' - So someone being a Christian automatically makes him wrong at the discussion? Yeah the FACT that you think that shows that you have irrational and disturbing hate of Christians

Point One:  Since you're a Christian and you're religion is wrong that makes you wrong when making a statement like "Our Nation is ruled by God's Laws" because your God doesn't exist.  He was just a literary creation of an author about 3,000 years ago based on earlier Gods.  I think it's quite rational for me to accept the fact that you're wrong without hating you.

I believe he said that in the constitituion it says that american laws are God given. Or maybe he meant moral laws. And your ''fact'' that God doesnt exist is just as relevant and good as the tree my cow uses to wipe her ass with. And what the Hell do you mean by ''bringing God back to the country''?  America is alrady religious country as it is, no matter how much you hate the fact.

Well, the Founding Fathers left off their writing of the Constitution with the fact that it should allow room for Ammendments so that over time as more knowledge about how the world actually happens to be, then changes could be written into The Constitution to reflect those new ideas.  Probably much like the Bible's J author, The Founding Fathers didn't think their Documents were written in stone much as you strict Constitutionalists do  So, since it was discovered about 80 years later than the Constitution was written that their might be other explanations for things, then the Founders might not have written what has become inflammatory references about God into the Constitution.  

The country needs to move away from religion since it fosters a perfect slave system of many people that never really work for the betterment of themselves as they're expecting Jesus to return any day now, so they reject something like Obama's health care plan which might actually bring beneficial changes to their lives.   It's the folks I've seen on Tea Party Rallies holding up signs about bringing God back into everything that make me wonder what they mean.  No doubt, they should be able to follow their religions in private and let them die out while leaving everybody else alone so that they can have all the freedoms that every citizen of this nation should have the right to enjoy far from the scrutiny of religious types.

I beleive he was argung the liberal bias some of the proffesors at the universites have, not that he hates them. But than again, not like you insane hatred towards Christianity could make you see things the way they are

I don't have an insane hatred towards Christianity.  I just know that very often if you look at the past, then you can see how the future will go.  And, if you look at the history of the Christian Church, then you can very much see how it would go if they had their way again.  And no doubt even today, they do want to interfere in other people's lives like preventing gays from getting married or women from having abortions.

Or perhaps you cant distinguish the difference between the institutions of Christianity (the church) and the Christianity itself?  Not to mention you judged the group of 2.2 billion people by the actions of some of the kingdoms that killed eople 700 years ago.

I can distinguish between the teachings of Christianity and Christianity itself.  But really its main source document advocates stoning gays to death and killing witches (and everyone in Cannaan so the Hebrews can have the land).  Even Jesus is allowed to say in the Bible that he came with a sword and that he didn't come to do away with the teachings of prophets that believed that people should kill gays and witches (even though he did say let him without sin cast the first stone to some priests that were going to stone an adulterous woman to death -- such a stoning would have been advocated by scriptures themselves.)

There is some research data that shows that many of those that profess to believe in The Bible have never read it.  Perhaps that's why they hold on to its teachings.

Actually, I haven't looked into Zeitgeist that closely, however, if most of its critics happen to be Chritsians, in my opinion that wouldn't be indicative of its failing hard.  And all that you have to do to see the much earlier Sumerian influence on the religion of the Hebrews is go back and read the Babylonian and Sumerian texts which are very much in existance today.  Yahweh is very much based on Ea and Enki and to some extent on the Egyptian monotheistic traditions started by the Egyptian King Akhenaten and by the Persian Zoroaster.  As widely regarded a figure as Sugmund Freud believed Moses to have been a priest of Akhenaten's order. 

At any rate it's well known today (and has been for over two centuries see America's Founding Father Thomas Paine's Age of Reason) that Moses didn't write the first five books of the Bible As for the Documentary Hypothesis, without a doubt, it is very much the accepted scholarly notion of how The Bible was written and is taught in every major university and Howard Bloom author of the Book of J is a highly distinguished professor at Yale University.  One could lable someone like Gerald Massey or Acharya S. as being a bit pseudoscientific perhaps though I think it would mainly be the Christians or someone with stock in the Christian religion that would want to do so. However, a book that has long been without scholarly reproach Sir James G. Frazier's The Golden Bough covers the same ground and though considered to be a bit dated is very much considered an authoritative work dealing with much the same material.

So your argument for defending Zeitgeist is that Christians were debunking it so it has to be wrong? Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?  Go read that article and if you want, I can show you a set of videos that debunk Zeitgests's connection of mosses to other people from pagan religions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NElDmGdBOoI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prbuPh4tj-E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOmIDNd8e20

These are only small, short and fast debunkings, but for the full disprovmment of linking Christianity to pagan religions see the link here

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/

Like I said before, pagan symbolics are largely present in Christianity, but the claims that Christianity originated from pagan religions has been debunked quite the few times already

Player1X3 said: "There is no proof that my God doesnt exist. Until you show the evidence that says so, your argument '#your God doesnt exist'# is useless. The abrahaic God is different than earlier gods in almost every way."

I said: Can you demonstrate that with some kind of scholarly evidence? Just saying so doesn't make it true and if you go back and look at Genesis, for example, you see that Yahweh was very much behaving in the Flood narrative exactly as Ea and Enki were doing in the earlier Sumerian version except for the fact that in the later work contained in Genesis Yahweh is one God displaying the personality characteristics of the two earlier Sumerian Gods which makes sense if one assumes that religion evolves from polytheism to monotheism due to the fact that Monotheism makes it easier to control the people.



Player1X3 said:
"When the Founders might not have written what has become inflammatory references about God into the Constitution.
Whatever your opinnion on their writings was, the fact remains that the constitituion says the laws come from the God. And what exaclty did chnage about God so that american constitution must be rewritten? And Bible's (Bible is the New testament) authors were people around Jesus, his followers and apostolles, as its already been confirmed, Jesus Christ is a historiclly proven person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible"


I Said: On The Constitution, even if they wrote about God in The Constitution, there's no reason to think they would have if they had been born a couple of hundred years later and gone to the best schools in the land. Matter of fact being Enlightenment era thinkers they probably would not have done so and seeing as how they left rooms for Ammendments to have been made to the Constitution after their time, then they probably wouldn't have minded too much if someone had removed them following the scientific advances of the 19th Century. As a matter of fact if one reads Founding Father Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason" wherein he states that he believes in God but nothing that humans have ever written about him and Jesus as well for that matter; then one would have expected them to have anticipated such a removal of those types of passages.

Nevertheless The Founding Fathers' writing about God's Laws wouldn't make God any the more when all scientific evidence says he doesn't exist.

As for Jesus as a historical person: Most of The New Testament books weren't written until about 30 to 40 years after Jesus died and there's really no way to know if they were historically accurate as to what they had to say about Jesus. A lot of evidence says that some of the Gnostic Gospels that were excluded from The Bible at The Council of Nicea in 315 CE due to Constantine's wanting to co-op the religion as many before him did to create his own system of keeping the people in line that were quite a bit more radical in their thinking than anything contained in The Bible were actually closer in line to what Jesus had to say than were the Synoptic (accepted) Gospels.

At any rate no outside authority (other than some disputed passages in Josephus) had much to say about whether or not Jesus was a real historical figure. I think the only hard evidence for Jesus' physical existence is his tomb in the Jerusalem Museum which a lot of authorities want to dispute, however, it is really the only hard evidence for Jesus being an actual person. However, The Jerusalem Crypt is certainly not an empty tomb and as there are ashes and bone chips belonging to Jesus in it, it's pretty apparent if you accept the only real evidence for his existence that Jesus didn't do such a good job of raising from the dead after three days.

"So you, like all other atheists I know, like to focus on small minority of fundamentalists and fanatics and totally ignore all the other reasonable normal people who follow Christianity to benefit your own hateful and ignorant thoughts and beliefs of Christianity, because you hate it so much? Isnt this extremly irrational and biased? How about you star being objective for a while and look at the bigger picture. I am fine with you hating on them, in fact, i dont like them either, they give other people bad name, but when you try and judge the group of 2.2 billion people based on actions of a small miniroty of people, thats what pisses me off. And let me tell you, Christianity is the ost liberal abrahamic religion in the world."

If they exist in those numbers yet they're letting the much smaller group of fanatics etc, still do as they please, then they're still towing the party line which doesn't do much to raise my opinion of them.

Player1X3: "Oh please, the reason Middle Ages was as bloody as it was, was the collapse of roman empire and foundation of lots of less civilized kingdoms and tribes that only used Christiany as a tool to make people go to war for them. And I am not defending the church at all, as I dont follow one, I am defending Christian relligion and its innocence during history. I do NOT wish the church to rule over a country, but I would never ever go forbid a religion in any country, like you would"

Yeah 100,000s of thousands of dead folks due to a religion's main scriptures makes it absolutely innocent. Many people died simply because they choice to follow a different God than Yahweh as forbidden in the very first of the Ten Commandments.

Player1X3 said: "(and everyone in Cannaan so the Hebrews can have the land).What? God and Jesus Christ comanded no such thing. Again, learn the difference between Christianity (New testament, teachings of Christ) and Judism( Old testament, Book of Levitcus and others) "

I said: According to the Bible Yahweh very much commanded The Israelites that they could have the Holy Land as their possession as long as they would kill all of the people already living there (which has its echoes in the displacement of the American Indians from their land by the American Colonialists and the destruction of the Meso-American Indians by The Spanish Conquistadores) .

Like I said above it wasn't Moses that wrote The Five Books of the Torah which is the entire foundation of the Judeao-Christian.  The Documentary Hypothesis is the accepted Scholarly notion of how those Books were written.  And Judeao-Christianity very much did come out of the Egyptian Slave tradition. What the J author originally intended as a literary chronicle of her family's history was redacted first by the Elohist school of authors that felt that the J author did a disservice to their religion by removing all of the older gods which is why you still find passages discussing multiple Gods and God described as "We" and "Us" in the early pages of Genesis in material written later than the J author wrote her primary text.

And following the example of Ancient Egypt (whether consciously or unconsciously) the three priestly schools have writers that finished the Torah's construction by adding all the Laws  that you find in it to construct a system for keeping the people in line.

And Constantine in his turn co-opted Christianity in much the same way when he chose to convert the Roman Empire into The Catholic Church to trap people under a system of belief rather than having to deal with barbarians at his gate.  It doesn't really matter if Christianity grew out of Pagan Religions (there's no doubt that Hebraism which is the basis for the whole system did) or just co-opted their symbols to get their followers into the fold.  The truth is since The Gospels weren't written until about 30 to 40 years after the death of Jesus (and were later re-edited by the Catholics for political reasons), nobody knows what Jesus really had to say (judging by books like The Gospel of Thomas he was probably just a socialistic philosopher not happy about the way the priests were using the religion to make money off the poor people),  and he definitely wasn't the divine offspring of a God that happened to be a literary creation based on earlier gods as part of a literary story (which even at the time it was first written was so disputed that it had to be rewritten over 1,000 years by The Elohist and Priestly Schools) by an author 1,000 years before his birth.

Player1X3 said: "There is no proof that my God doesnt exist. Until you show the evidence that says so, your argument '#your God doesnt exist'# is useless. The abrahaic God is different than earlier gods in almost every way."

I said: Can you demonstrate that with some kind of scholarly evidence? Just saying so doesn't make it true and if you go back and look at Genesis, for example, you see that Yahweh was very much behaving in the Flood narrative exactly as Ea and Enki were doing in the earlier Sumerian version except for the fact that in the later work contained in Genesis Yahweh is one God displaying the personality characteristics of the two earlier Sumerian Gods which makes sense if one assumes that religion evolves from polytheism to monotheism due to the fact that Monotheism makes it easier to control the people.



Player1X3 said:
"When the Founders might not have written what has become inflammatory references about God into the Constitution.
Whatever your opinnion on their writings was, the fact remains that the constitituion says the laws come from the God. And what exaclty did chnage about God so that american constitution must be rewritten? And Bible's (Bible is the New testament) authors were people around Jesus, his followers and apostolles, as its already been confirmed, Jesus Christ is a historiclly proven person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible"


I Said: On The Constitution, even if they wrote about God in The Constitution, there's no reason to think they would have if they had been born a couple of hundred years later and gone to the best schools in the land. Matter of fact being Enlightenment era thinkers they probably would not have done so and seeing as how they left rooms for Ammendments to have been made to the Constitution after their time, then they probably wouldn't have minded too much if someone had removed them following the scientific advances of the 19th Century. As a matter of fact if one reads Founding Father Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason" wherein he states that he believes in God but nothing that humans have ever written about him and Jesus as well for that matter; then one would have expected them to have anticipated such a removal of those types of passages.

Nevertheless The Founding Fathers' writing about God's Laws wouldn't make God any the more when all scientific evidence says he doesn't exist.

As for Jesus as a historical person: Most of The New Testament books weren't written until about 30 to 40 years after Jesus died and there's really no way to know if they were historically accurate as to what they had to say about Jesus. A lot of evidence says that some of the Gnostic Gospels that were excluded from The Bible at The Council of Nicea in 315 CE due to Constantine's wanting to co-op the religion as many before him did to create his own system of keeping the people in line that were quite a bit more radical in their thinking than anything contained in The Bible were actually closer in line to what Jesus had to say than were the Synoptic (accepted) Gospels.

At any rate no outside authority (other than some disputed passages in Josephus) had much to say about whether or not Jesus was a real historical figure. I think the only hard evidence for Jesus' physical existence is his tomb in the Jerusalem Museum which a lot of authorities want to dispute, however, it is really the only hard evidence for Jesus being an actual person. However, The Jerusalem Crypt is certainly not an empty tomb and as there are ashes and bone chips belonging to Jesus in it, it's pretty apparent if you accept the only real evidence for his existence that Jesus didn't do such a good job of raising from the dead after three days.

"So you, like all other atheists I know, like to focus on small minority of fundamentalists and fanatics and totally ignore all the other reasonable normal people who follow Christianity to benefit your own hateful and ignorant thoughts and beliefs of Christianity, because you hate it so much? Isnt this extremly irrational and biased? How about you star being objective for a while and look at the bigger picture. I am fine with you hating on them, in fact, i dont like them either, they give other people bad name, but when you try and judge the group of 2.2 billion people based on actions of a small miniroty of people, thats what pisses me off. And let me tell you, Christianity is the ost liberal abrahamic religion in the world."

If they exist in those numbers yet they're letting the much smaller group of fanatics etc, still do as they please, then they're still towing the party line which doesn't do much to raise my opinion of them.

Player1X3: "Oh please, the reason Middle Ages was as bloody as it was, was the collapse of roman empire and foundation of lots of less civilized kingdoms and tribes that only used Christiany as a tool to make people go to war for them. And I am not defending the church at all, as I dont follow one, I am defending Christian relligion and its innocence during history. I do NOT wish the church to rule over a country, but I would never ever go forbid a religion in any country, like you would"

Yeah 100,000s of thousands of dead folks due to a religion's main scriptures makes it absolutely innocent. Many people died simply because they choice to follow a different God than Yahweh as forbidden in the very first of the Ten Commandments.

Player1X3 said: "(and everyone in Cannaan so the Hebrews can have the land).What? God and Jesus Christ comanded no such thing. Again, learn the difference between Christianity (New testament, teachings of Christ) and Judism( Old testament, Book of Levitcus and others) "

I said: According to the Bible Yahweh very much commanded The Israelites that they could have the Holy Land as their possession as long as they would kill all of the people already living there (which has its echoes in the displacement of the American Indians from their land by the American Colonialists and the destruction of the Meso-American Indians by The Spanish Conquistadores) .

In response to Player1X3's comment that Jesus was a historically proven figure:  

As for Jesus as a historical person: Most of The New Testament books weren't written until about 30 to 40 years after Jesus died and there's really no way to know if they were historically accurate as to what they had to say about Jesus. A lot of evidence says that some of the Gnostic Gospels that were excluded from The Bible at The Council of Nicea in 315 CE due to Constantine's wanting to co-op the religion as many before him did to create his own system of keeping the people in line that were quite a bit more radical in their thinking than anything contained in The Bible were actually closer in line to what Jesus had to say than were the Synoptic (accepted) Gospels.

At any rate no outside authority (other than some disputed passages in Josephus) had much to say about whether or not Jesus was a real historical figure. I think the only hard evidence for Jesus' physical existence is his tomb in the Jerusalem Museum which a lot of authorities want to dispute, however, it is

really the only hard evidence for Jesus being an actual person. However, The Jerusalem Crypt is certainly not an empty tomb and as there are ashes and bone chips belonging to Jesus in it, it's pretty apparent if you accept the only real evidence for his existence that Jesus didn't do such a good job of raising from the dead after three days.

"So you, like all other atheists I know, like to focus on small minority of fundamentalists and fanatics and totally ignore all the other reasonable normal people who follow Christianity to benefit your own hateful and ignorant thoughts and beliefs of Christianity, because you hate it so much? Isnt this extremly irrational and biased? How about you star being objective for a while and look at the bigger picture. I am fine with you hating on them, in fact, i dont like them either, they give other people bad name, but when you try and judge the group of 2.2 billion people based on actions of a small miniroty of people, thats what pisses me off. And let me tell you, Christianity is the ost liberal abrahamic religion in the world."

If they exist in those numbers yet they're letting the much smaller group of fanatics etc, still do as they please, then they're still towing the party line which doesn't do much to raise my opinion of them.

Player1X3: "Oh please, the reason Middle Ages was as bloody as it was, was the collapse of roman empire and foundation of lots of less civilized kingdoms and tribes that only used Christiany as a tool to make people go to war for them. And I am not defending the church at all, as I dont follow one, I am defending Christian relligion and its innocence during history. I do NOT wish the church to rule over a country, but I would never ever go forbid a religion in any country, like you would"

Yeah 100,000s of thousands of dead folks due to a religion's main scriptures makes it absolutely innocent. Many people died simply because they choice to follow a different God than Yahweh as forbidden in the very first of the Ten Commandments.

Player1X3 said: "(and everyone in Cannaan so the Hebrews can have the land).What? God and Jesus Christ comanded no such thing. Again, learn the difference between Christianity (New testament, teachings of Christ) and Judism( Old testament, Book of Levitcus and others) "

I said: According to the Bible Yahweh very much commanded The Israelites that they could have the Holy Land as their possession as long as they would kill all of the people already living there (which has its echoes in the displacement of the American Indians from their land by the American Colonialists and the destruction of the Meso-American Indians by The Spanish Conquistadores) . 

your lucky whole whole rant has been targeted to Christianity. because if you were going this wayyyyy off topic bashing everything about say islam or gays, you would be banned in an instant. but your lucky, as all the mods hate Christianity as much as you do. they may as well change the rules (the ones you have blatently been violating) to exclude Christianity because it evident that they dont care how off topic they are as long as they bash Christianity.

but like i said read the title of the thread, then read what you have been ranting about, then (your inteligence permitting) realize what you are saying does not belong here

Well, the topic of this thread is Can A Movement Similar to Fascism Arise in The US, and I have answered that it can and given solid reasons and evidence to support the idea that if it does so, then it will most likely arise from Fundamentalist Christianity as at heart that it is what it has always been, so I would say whether or not you like it, Sherlock, my posts on this topic definitely belong in this thread.