• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Kosovo Je Srbije

Frisbeetarian

Frisbeetarian

Legendary Member
That's the Hebrew Bible. Our rules come from the New Testament. Try again.
You don't get to cherry pick to suit your delusions, sorry.

You've never heard of kings and emperors? What are you? 2 years old?
Your analysis of branching complex geopolitical events and societal realities - which religions naturally shape - boils down to "powerful political people". Which is a nice cop out when you can't be arsed to educate yourself and just want to be right.

False. Most historians agree that Jesus existed. You can find multiple references about him outside Christian scriptures.

"Almost all historical critics agree that a historical figure named Jesus taught throughout the Galilean countryside c. 30 CE, was believed by his followers to have performed supernatural acts, and was sentenced to death by the Romans, possibly for insurrection."

Historicity of the Bible - Wikipedia
I just find the fact that no one can say for sure (that is lack of physical evidence) humorous.

The point I was making is that you're complaning about Westerners colonizing "your countries" while you are colonizers yourself. There are still non-Muslim natives in "your countries" and if it was up to you, you would get rid of those as well.
No I wouldn't, you shouldn't project. And by "our countries" I mean the countries which have been abused and suffered under colonialism. The fact that you can't see things outside of narrow definitions and tribal identity only further cements how deluded you are and how your critique of Islam and Muslims stems from an incapacity to understand anything that is different or ideologically challenges your religion.

My religion is not faulty. My religion is perfect. And the more I learn about it, the more I realize how perfect it is.
Right.

I'm sorry you can't say the same about your religion, and I know that your second best option is to make false equivalences and claim that all religions are faulty; however, that is simply not true.
It simply isn't true because Indie doesn't want it to be true. And because Indie doesn't want it to be true, Indie is going to ignore history and the written catalog of the massacres that Christianity is responsible for so that Indie can live in a safe, perfect, cushy bubble void of any critique or self analysis.

All man made systems are faulty. The virgin marry was not a virgin when she birthed God, and Jesus did not turn water into wine. Stop believing that 2000 year old cartoons are literally true.
 
Last edited:
  • Advertisement
  • eile

    eile

    Well-Known Member
    indeed, when some individuals claim to oppose - truthfully / coherently / in principle / objectively - a crime, but on the other hand, support/disregard the justification the act is attributed to by default, without any valid/rational/coherent reasoning for this support/disregard i.e without attempting to disprove such attribution or resolve this apparent contradiction, though they may be ignorant, they are potentially wicked

    it is only when [ they (intend to) pass from that phase into simply concealing this untackled/unresolved contradiction and diverting attention off of it (intend to conceal their intention of not doing what they appear to claim, or their intention of doing the opposite of what they appear to claim), by (all while still without any valid/rational/coherent reasoning) attributing the crime to a justification that otherwise opposes said crime and exposes their aforementioned intention, or indirectly so by attributing it to zero justifications or to all justifications or to 'any other justification', and thereby undermining the very process/act of defining/acknowledging/attributing/opposing the crime in the first place, the act/process they initially presented themselve to be doing ] that they are validly deemed wicked, and definitively so when such intention and hate of truth becomes entrenched / aligned with their nature
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    You don't get to cherry pick to suit your delusions, sorry.



    Your analysis of branching complex geopolitical events and societal realities - which religions naturally shape - boils down to "powerful political people". Which is a nice cop out when you can't be arsed to educate yourself and just want to be right.



    I just find the fact that no one can say for sure (that is lack of physical evidence) humorous.



    No I wouldn't, you shouldn't project. And by "our countries" I mean the countries which have been abused and suffered under colonialism. The fact that you can't see things outside of narrow definitions and tribal identity only further cements how deluded you are and how your critique of Islam and Muslims stems from an incapacity to understand anything that is different or ideologically challenges your religion.



    Right.



    It simply isn't true because Indie doesn't want it to be true. And because Indie doesn't want it to be true, Indie is going to ignore history and the written catalog of the massacres that Christianity is responsible for so that Indie can live in a safe, perfect, cushy bubble void of any critique or self analysis.

    All man made systems are faulty. The virgin marry was not a virgin when she birthed God, and Jesus did not turn water into wine. Stop believing that 2000 year old cartoons are literally true.
    Talking with people like you is a waste of time. You are so uninformed about Christianity that you think Jesus never existed, despite most historians saying he did; and, yet, you think you are well placed to make other claims about Christian doctrine.

    You have no clue what you're talking about, but by the looks of it, you're not interested in learning, either. So find someone else to entertain yourself with.
     
    eile

    eile

    Well-Known Member
    You don't get to cherry pick to suit your delusions, sorry.



    Your analysis of branching complex geopolitical events and societal realities - which religions naturally shape - boils down to "powerful political people". Which is a nice cop out when you can't be arsed to educate yourself and just want to be right.



    I just find the fact that no one can say for sure (that is lack of physical evidence) humorous.



    No I wouldn't, you shouldn't project. And by "our countries" I mean the countries which have been abused and suffered under colonialism. The fact that you can't see things outside of narrow definitions and tribal identity only further cements how deluded you are and how your critique of Islam and Muslims stems from an incapacity to understand anything that is different or ideologically challenges your religion.



    Right.



    It simply isn't true because Indie doesn't want it to be true. And because Indie doesn't want it to be true, Indie is going to ignore history and the written catalog of the massacres that Christianity is responsible for so that Indie can live in a safe, perfect, cushy bubble void of any critique or self analysis.

    All man made systems are faulty. The virgin marry was not a virgin when she birthed God, and Jesus did not turn water into wine. Stop believing that 2000 year old cartoons are literally true.
    unwarranted arrogance manifests itself when the individual is proudly (pitifully, in reality) parading himself to be something he demonstrably is not, and deceit is when this same individual consciously proceeds further down this path in their attempts to cover up (for) that. but eventually nothing remains concealed, here below is an example demonstration

    there are academic/rational laws and methods for interpreting any given text, as well as for picking and supporting/validating any presented interpretation, not just in the case of scriptures. when given a text here, one has to follow and apply those and then present their own supported interpretation for validation, or rely on others who did it on his behalf and pick the interpretation he deems fit, and present it here for validation/demonstration. Indie did just that, she summarily presented the official/mainstream Christian
    (Catholic) view (which she adopts) concerning the presented verse which you merely cherry picked (against your proclaimed principle of anti - cherry picking), while you are yet to follow in her steps or dismiss her adopted view, and be true to your proclaimed paraded self

    moreover, since the historicity of Christ is as much scholarly historically ascertained as (if not more) any other scholarly historically ascertained
    human figure, and since you find relying on such historical ascertainment to be not-enough and humorous, then your issue becomes with ascertained history in general and academia (i.e with reality). it's no wonder then that you happen to embrace a fringe theory such as the 'Christ myth' which is looked down upon and mocked by almost every reputable scholar. so much for a proclaimed myth buster, you are turning out to be a total opposite, in fact

    moreover, your statement "all man-made systems are faulty" (by which you mean that nothing could be absolutely true or ascertained) naturally includes, and therefore defeat/invalidate, itself. no claim of rationality can stand while embracing such a view. so much for the image of the rational type you parade of yourself

    furthermore, events such as the virgin birth, the incarnation, or miracles such as turning water into wine, are ascertained via the corroboration of different types of evidence or of an all-encompassing evidence; philosophical/rational, empirical, historical, etc, that would answer different but inter-related/supported questions: did the human person whom the miracles are attributed to exist (empirical/historical type)? are the claimed events/miracles possible/impossible rationally / in principle (philosophical type)? are the related claims historically/generally reliable (empirical/historical/philosophical type)? etc. ; so to appear to claim rationality and truth, and then appear obliged to narrow all that down, or to disregard (in general) all but one (cherry-picked) type/piece of evidence, to suit your preconceived / rationally-unsupported view is to expose yourself to be what you really are, a fraud
     
    Last edited:
    eile

    eile

    Well-Known Member
    Talking with people like you is a waste of time. You are so uninformed about Christianity that you think Jesus never existed, despite most historians saying he did; and, yet, you think you are well placed to make other claims about Christian doctrine.

    You have no clue what you're talking about, but by the looks of it, you're not interested in learning, either. So find someone else to entertain yourself with.
    i agree, i took a hand only because i believe they can be used as a good example, and also because i had some free time
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    i agree, i took a hand only because i believe they can be used as a good example, and also because i had some free time
    Thank you, btw. These false claims have to be challenged. But my patience is failing, I'm afraid. Something I need to work on :)
     
    Frisbeetarian

    Frisbeetarian

    Legendary Member
    unwarranted arrogance manifests itself when the individual is proudly (pitifully, in reality) parading himself to be something he demonstrably is not, and deceit is when this same individual consciously proceeds further down this path in their attempts to cover up (for) that. but eventually nothing remains concealed, here below is an example demonstration
    there are academic/rational laws and methods for interpreting any given text, as well as for picking and supporting/validating any presented interpretation, not just in the case of scriptures. when given a text here, one has to follow and apply those and then present their own supported interpretation for validation, or rely on others who did it on his behalf and pick the interpretation he deems fit, and present it here for validation/demonstration. Indie did just that, she summarily presented the official/mainstream Christian
    (Catholic) view (which she adopts) concerning the presented verse which you merely cherry picked (against your proclaimed principle of anti - cherry picking), while you are yet to follow in her steps or dismiss her adopted view, and be true to your proclaimed paraded self
    The "catholic view" adopted those very same texts when undertaking military campaigns and laying the ground work for holy crusaders and invasions. The "mainstream" Church and its constituencies adopted these texts as valid canon in their acts of genocide and reckoning around the world. That is the reality of what happens and continues (to some extent) to happen today. You don't get to be oblivious to reality and try to propagandazise that Christianity is all peaceful in a dumb attempt at virtue signaling.

    moreover, since the historicity of Christ is as much scholarly historically ascertained as (if not more) any other scholarly historically ascertained
    human figure, and since you find relying on such historical ascertainment to be not-enough and humorous, then your issue becomes with ascertained history in general and academia (i.e with reality). it's no wonder then that you happen to embrace a fringe theory such as the 'Christ myth' which is looked down upon and mocked by almost every reputable scholar. so much for a proclaimed myth buster, you are turning out to be a total opposite, in fact
    No it is very much still debated. The fact that you're so desperate to ridicule anyone who would bring up the issue only highlights how insecure you truly feel about the issue. In any case I never argued that Christ never existed. I stated that I find the entire situation humorous.

    moreover, your statement "all man-made systems are faulty" (by which you mean that nothing could be absolutely true or ascertained) naturally includes, and therefore defeat/invalidate, itself. no claim of rationality can stand while embracing such a view. so much for the image of the rational type you parade of yourself
    Again Eile, you're not actually saying/proving anything when you resort to "naturally invalidates itself" everytime. Try coming up with an actual reasoned rebuttal for a change?

    furthermore, events such as the virgin birth, the incarnation, or miracles such as turning water into wine, are ascertained via the corroboration of different types of evidence or of an all-encompassing evidence; philosophical/rational, empirical, historical, etc, that would answer different but inter-related/supported questions: did the human person whom the miracles are attributed to exist (empirical/historical type)? are the claimed events/miracles possible/impossible rationally / in principle (philosophical type)? are the related claims historically/generally reliable (empirical/historical/philosophical type)? etc. ; so to appear to claim rationality and truth, and then appear obliged to narrow all that down, or to disregard (in general) all but one (cherry-picked) type/piece of evidence, to suit your preconceived / rationally-unsupported view is to expose yourself to be what you really are, a fraud
    I'm the fraud according to the guy/gall trying to convince people that god came down from the heavens and impregnated a lady who then gave birth while still being a virgin. These aren't events, these are myths. Big difference and the fact that you're unable to differentiate is really telling.
     
    Last edited:
    Frisbeetarian

    Frisbeetarian

    Legendary Member
    Talking with people like you is a waste of time. You are so uninformed about Christianity that you think Jesus never existed, despite most historians saying he did; and, yet, you think you are well placed to make other claims about Christian doctrine.

    You have no clue what you're talking about, but by the looks of it, you're not interested in learning, either. So find someone else to entertain yourself with.

    Wasn't even that entertaining to be honest. You just threw a couple of idiotic statements and then left when confronted with actual reasoned arguments.
     
    Frisbeetarian

    Frisbeetarian

    Legendary Member
    Thank you, btw. These false claims have to be challenged. But my patience is failing, I'm afraid. Something I need to work on :)
    No, you're just uninformed and dogmatic. A deadly combination.
     
    J

    joseph_lubnan

    Legendary Member
    @Frisbeetarian @Indie can we at least define one specific identifiable thing that the two of you want to discuss or fight about so we can at least follow what you are bantering back and forth? Help us out :)
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    @Frisbeetarian @Indie can we at least define one specific identifiable thing that the two of you want to discuss or fight about so we can at least follow what you are bantering back and forth? Help us out :)
    We can't. The guy just follows me from thread to thread to say that I'm a racist and a bigot, gets put back in his place, comes up with more lies and logical fallacies, the cycle continues until I am bored and tired of wasting my time on an intellectually dishonest manipulator and leave the discussion, at which point he claims he won the argument.

    I didn't read the posts he made since I was last in this thread, nor do I intend to. He can have the last word as a consolation prize. I'd rather spend my energy on people who are genuinely interrested in learning about the other's point of view, and do not look at conversations as zero-sum games.
     
    eile

    eile

    Well-Known Member
    The "catholic view" adopted those very same texts when undertaking military campaigns and laying the ground work for holy crusaders and invasions. The "mainstream" Church and its constituencies adopted these texts as valid canon in their acts of genocide and reckoning around the world. That is the reality of what happens and continues (to some extent) to happen today. You don't get to be oblivious to reality and try to propagandazise that Christianity is all peaceful in a dumb attempt at virtue signaling.



    No it is very much still debated. The fact that you're so desperate to ridicule anyone who would bring up the issue only highlights how insecure you truly feel about the issue. In any case I never argued that Christ never existed. I stated that I find the entire situation humorous.



    Again Eile, you're not actually saying/proving anything when you resort to "naturally invalidates itself" everytime. Try coming up with an actual reasoned rebuttal for a change?



    I'm the fraud according to the guy/gall trying to convince people that god came down from the heavens and impregnated a lady who then gave birth while still being a virgin. These aren't events, these are myths. Big difference and the fact that you're unable to differentiate is really telling.
    texts are not their own interpretation. 'adopted text' and 'adopted view on an adopted text' are two distinct (yet related) things, adopting a text and interpreting it are two distinct operations, though ignorant people and frauds usually try to evade/distort that by equating the two. honest folks, on the other hand, seek out the proclaimed/prevailing interpretation of an adopted set of texts, and then try to actually tackle (validate/invalidate) it, then proceed in demonstrating how said interpretation/view can or cannot - support/not-oppose -, -cause- or -prevent- the evil acts they or others assign to it, and to the corresponding texts by extension. not without them providing their proclaimed rational foundation according to which they'd justify how and why the evil acts they claim to (coherently, definitively or in-principle) consider evil and oppose are actually evil

    had we not ridiculed you by the very act of actually addressing your claims (repeatedly whether in this thread or elsewhere), our ridicule would've been unwarranted and based on insecurity (as is demonstrably the case with your attempts). indeed, our ridicule is very well in place; only frauds appear to support and advocate the academic system (in principle) and then appear to question and ridicule (in principle) the reliance on a consensus of history scholars for sufficiently ascertaining the historical existence of someone whose historical existence they ('d want to) deny

    actual frauds usually appear to advocate rationality and truth, and then appear obliged to embrace or subscribe to straight-out self-contradicting statements (whose contradiction is too obvious for any human with two neurons not to reckon or pause at), and then act completely oblivious to it being pointed out, all while still proclaiming rationality and firm adherence to the laws of thought such as the law of non-contradiction which they particularly disregard. a self-contradicting proposition is a proposition that refutes itself, is by itself self-inconsistent, inasmuch as it entails its own negation, as is generally the case with your claims, particularly such as the one in which you imply 'we cannot be completely certain of any truth, that there are no truths per se'. but simple logical reasoning and criticism dictate that if 'there are no truths', then 'it is true that there are no truths', then there are some, and if there are some, then there are some. so necessarily there are some truths. more importantly, since your claim 'there are no truths' is self-inconsistent inasmuch it entails its own negation, 'there are truths' is valid not merely on the basis that no one can deny it without contradicting himself, but on the basis of it being valid independently of any mind

    you are a fraud especially because not only your are erecting a caricature of Christianity and addressing it instead of addressing the actual material with its philosophical foundation, but because your are basing your caricature (the role of which is to contrast your supposed rationality versus the purported irrationality of your opponent) on rationally unsupported premises, against rationally supported ones which are well within reach, which you are yet to tackle, and which you are demonstrably evading
     
    Last edited:
    J

    joseph_lubnan

    Legendary Member
    We can't. The guy just follows me from thread to thread to say that I'm a racist and a bigot, gets put back in his place, comes up with more lies and logical fallacies, the cycle continues until I am bored and tired of wasting my time on an intellectually dishonest manipulator and leave the discussion, at which point he claims he won the argument.

    I didn't read the posts he made since I was last in this thread, nor do I intend to. He can have the last word as a consolation prize. I'd rather spend my energy on people who are genuinely interrested in learning about the other's point of view, and do not look at conversations as zero-sum games.
    I can't say I'm not happy that you are fighting with others and not with me :) I'm counting my blessings.
     
    Frisbeetarian

    Frisbeetarian

    Legendary Member
    texts are not their own interpretation. 'adopted text' and 'adopted view on an adopted text' are two distinct (yet related) things, adopting a text and interpreting it are two distinct operations, though ignorant people and frauds usually try to evade/distort that by equating the two. honest folks, on the other hand, seek out the proclaimed/prevailing interpretation of an adopted set of texts, and then try to actually tackle (validate/invalidate) it, then proceed in demonstrating how said interpretation/view can or cannot - support/not-oppose -, -cause- or -prevent- the evil acts they or others assign to it, and to the corresponding texts by extension. not without them providing their proclaimed rational foundation according to which they'd justify how and why the evil acts they claim to (coherently, definitively or in-principle) consider evil and oppose are actually evil
    Honest people tend to take man made systems/ideologies and measure various stratas based on historic performance. If the new testament largely endorses non violence does not make Christianity a non violent religion since its prophet and churches consider the old testament bibles as valid canon, and these are rife with violence and with calls for holy war. These have been used to wage holy campaigns, colonial adventures and have been set up to lay the ground work for the conversion/massacre of a continent. What kind of an honest person -when weighing the substantive violent history of Christianity- would ever still fall on the new testament Bibles proclaiming innocences because of their supposed commitment to nonviolence? (all the while conveniently forgetting the politicization which culminated in the new Testament and the results of the Council of Nicaea). That's obviously not the entire story and does no explain why Christianity continued to produce the conditions necessary for war, genocide and colonialism. Just as it helped usher in the conditions for Renaissance Europe. The story is not that of holy religions, prophets and virgins. It is one of dogmatic ideologies and their zealots trying to convince people that we should be myopic to the results that follow the assertion of a religion on a people. In a vain and ultimately criminal attempt to whitewash responsibility for horrendous behavior.

    Man made systems are faulty in that when we are confronted with the obvious failings of a system we strive to fix the issues. Charlatans and ideologues try to convince people that the problem, for all these hundreds of years have been the people and not the actual ideologies which -invariably- shaped and continue to shape their behavior.

    had we not ridiculed you by the very act of actually addressing your claims (repeatedly whether in this thread or elsewhere), our ridicule would've been unwarranted and based on insecurity (as is demonstrably the case with your attempts). indeed, our ridicule is very well in place; only frauds appear to support and advocate the academic system (in principle) and then appear to question and ridicule (in principle) the reliance on a consensus of history scholars for sufficiently ascertaining the historical existence of someone whose historical existence they ('d want to) deny
    Stop being so desperate. I'm not that interested in you personally. I already clarified where I stand on this, you're only making yourself look sadder by insisting on something I already said I don't believe in.

    actual frauds usually appear to advocate rationality and truth, and then appear obliged to embrace or subscribe to straight-out self-contradicting statements (whose contradiction is too obvious for any human with two neurons not to reckon or pause at), and then act completely oblivious to it being pointed out, all while still proclaiming rationality and firm adherence to the laws of thought such as the law of non-contradiction which they particularly disregard. a self-contradicting proposition is a proposition that refutes itself, is by itself self-inconsistent, inasmuch as it entails its own negation, as is generally the case with your claims, particularly such as the one in which you imply 'we cannot be completely certain of any truth, that there are no truths per se'. but simple logical reasoning and criticism dictate that if 'there are no truths', then 'it is true that there are no truths', then there are some, and if there are some, then there are some. so necessarily there are some truths. more importantly, since your claim 'there are no truths' is self-inconsistent inasmuch it entails its own negation, 'there are truths' is valid not merely on the basis that no one can deny it without contradicting himself, but on the basis of it being valid independently of any mind
    You always get it backwards since you're in constant need of spoon feeding.
    Faulty in that a dialectic is always needed to readjust and recalibrate. When you omit the possibility of a dialectic (absolute god with all the traits that follow) then you cement your ideology and make it resilient to the conditions of history. Which in turn produces zealots and narrow minded ideologues such as yourself who are unable to question since that violates one of the core pillars of said faith.
    Faulty in that they must be reevaluated visavis the constraints, conditions and changes happening happening in a dynamic society. There are no absolute "truth" in a system that is constantly changing and taking shape.

    you are a fraud especially because not only your are erecting a caricature of Christianity and addressing it instead of addressing the actual material with its philosophical foundation, but because your are basing your caricature (the role of which is to contrast your supposed rationality versus the purported irrationality of your opponent) on rationally unsupported premises, against rationally supported ones which are well within reach, which you are yet to tackle, and which you are demonstrably evading
    The only one caricaturing Christianity is the one of who refuses to take the historicity of Christianity into account and chooses to pigeonhole the entire narrative according to a well known agenda. All the while demonizing the other and constantly virtue signaling like an immature brat.
     
    Last edited:
    Frisbeetarian

    Frisbeetarian

    Legendary Member
    @Frisbeetarian @Indie can we at least define one specific identifiable thing that the two of you want to discuss or fight about so we can at least follow what you are bantering back and forth? Help us out :)
    Indie believes that Christianity is perfect. I don't.
     
    eile

    eile

    Well-Known Member
    Honest people tend to take man made systems/ideologies and measure various stratas based on historic performance. If the new testament largely endorses non violence does not make Christianity a non violent religion since its prophet and churches consider the old testament bibles as valid canon, and these are rife with violence and with calls for holy war. These have been used to wage holy campaigns, colonial adventures and have been set up to lay the ground work for the conversion/massacre of a continent. What kind of an honest person -when weighing the substantive violent history of Christianity- would ever still fall on the new testament Bibles proclaiming innocences because of their supposed commitment to nonviolence? (all the while conveniently forgetting the politicization which culminated in the new Testament and the results of the Council of Nicaea). That's obviously not the entire story and does no explain why Christianity continued to produce the conditions necessary for war, genocide and colonialism. Just as it helped usher in the conditions for Renaissance Europe. The story is not that of holy religions, prophets and virgins. It is one of dogmatic ideologies and their zealots trying to convince people that we should be myopic to the results that follow the assertion of a religion on a people. In a vain and ultimately criminal attempt to whitewash responsibility for horrendous behavior.

    Man made systems are faulty in that when we are confronted with the obvious failings of a system we strive to fix the issues. Charlatans and ideologues try to convince people that the problem, for all these hundreds of years have been the people and not the actual ideologies which -invariably- shaped and continue to shape their behavior.



    Stop being so desperate. I'm not that interested in you personally. I already clarified where I stand on this, you're only making yourself look sadder by insisting on something I already said I don't believe in.



    You always get it backwards since you're in constant need of spoon feeding.
    Faulty in that a dialectic is always needed to readjust and recalibrate. When you omit the possibility of a dialectic (absolute god with all the traits that follow) then you cement your ideology and make it resilient to the conditions of history. Which in turn produces zealots and narrow minded ideologues such as yourself who are unable to question since that violates one of the core pillars of said faith.
    Faulty in that they must be reevaluated visavis the constraints, conditions and changes happening happening in a dynamic society. There are no absolute "truth" in a system that is constantly changing and taking shape.



    The only one caricaturing Christianity is the one of who refuses to take the historicity of Christianity into account and chooses to pigeonhole the entire narrative according to a well known agenda. All the while demonizing the other and constantly virtue signaling like an immature brat.
    what follows is rewording of my previous post, of why you are indeed a fraud;

    you are pointing out human acts which you claim to be evil and that you definitively consider them so, and you are attributing them to the Bible / Christianity, that is, you are attributing them to an interpretation of the Bible or a version of Christianity you're implicitly presuming or adopting without any support whatsoever, against the actual/mainstream interpretation which you've been presented with and are still conveniently evading (Catechism of the Catholic Church), and, in the process, evading and distorting the reality that the attribution of said evil acts could be wrong given the possibility that the Bible you are attributing them to could be misinterpreted, where the interpretation according to which you are attributing said acts is itself invalid, or that the Bible is validly interpreted but was disregarded for ulterior/anti-Bible motives by the people proclaiming (abusing) it. evading and distorting the reality that the evil acts you're attributing to it could be against the valid interpretation/consideration of it and could actually be coherently opposed by it and by nothing -other than / inherently contrary- to it (in which case you'd be required to present your reasoning behind your identification of and opposition to the evil acts you claim to be evil and oppose and attribute to the Bible, which of course you wouldn't even dare to think of doing)

    since you have been conceding lately what i personally have actually long been repeating on this forum, namely, that ideologies (the category of) in principle shape people and societies in an essential way (i.e shape even all other / circumstantial factors in this regard), you owe it to the rational image you parade of yourself to present us with the mindset(s), other than Christianity, that has shaped, still shapes, and will keep shaping societies coherently in the direction of [what you consider to be good that opposes the evil you claim to oppose] independently of or in inherent opposition to Christianity or its entailment/fruits, so that you may also disprove habermas' relevant claim in the process, for a change;
    [ "For the normative self-understanding of modernity, Christianity has functioned as more than just a precursor or catalyst. Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of a continual critical reappropriation and reinterpretation. Up to this very day there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a post-national constellation, we must draw sustenance now, as in the past, from this substance. Everything else is idle postmodern talk.[38][39][40][41]"
    -------------
    Jürgen Habermas (/ˈjɜːrɡən/ or /ˈjʊərɡən ˈhɑːbərmɑːs/;[1]German:[ˈjʏrɡn̩ ˈhaːbɐmaːs];[2] born 18 June 1929) is a German sociologistand philosopher in the tradition of critical theory and pragmatism. He is perhaps best known for his theories on communicative rationality and the public sphere. Global polls consistently find that Habermas is widely recognized as one of the world's leading intellectuals.[3]
    ]

    unsurprisingly, you also happen to exhibit a false understanding of what a dialectic (your new buzzword?) is or is supposed to be. you are claiming something along the lines of 'truth is sought out, discovered and tackled not merely by way of investigation, analysis, reasoning, discussion, and argumentation but by denying that 'we can be completely certain of some truths, that there are truths per se', and by that defeating the very purpose of what a dialectic is or is set to be, and, in the process, discarding a law of thought such as the law of non-contradiction without which nothing could be validated to begin with or everything could be equally valid, and consequently demonstrably proudly embracing straight-out contradictions without any appearance of guilt or shame as if this is a sign of something other than a mental tardiness or disease or deeply rooted deceit

    this being said, and as things stand right now, the 2000+ year old tradition of ever progressing and developing and coherently standing Christian doctrine and apologetics is a sufficient testament to Christianity being a manifestation of (actual) dialecticism par excellence. Christianity also stands as a counter-example to your other unsupported ridiculous claim that asserts that 'a perfect system and dialecticism are mutually exclusive'; we are imperfect or not in complete possession/authority of absolute truth, yet that doesn't disprove the existence of absolute truth nor disprove that we can learn of it, unfold it progressively, apply it (and live and grow in it)

    you also appear to claim to be tackling the 'claims of Christianity', a task which objectively involves tackling and answering different sorts of inter-related questions that naturally require the corroboration of different types/levels of evidence (e.g did Jesus exist historically, are the attributed events and miracles possible in principle? are the related claims reliable? is Christ indeed what he claims to be? so on and so forth), from which you were obliged to cherry-pick some (e.g the historical question/evidence of Christ existence, which you then even self-defeatedly rejected/ridiculed by also accepting/praising historicity as trustable venue for looking for the 'atrocities committed in the name of Christianity') and discarded some, to suit the false image / caricature you erect of Christianity, and which ironically turned out to be a window to your real self instead
     
    Last edited:
    Top