Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The Impact Of Christianity


Fweethawt

Recommended Posts

  • Super Moderator

Wow. There are no words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, jesus did all that.

 

Not bad for a three year ministry.

 

And not a single contradiction to any of it can be found in the bible!!!!

 

(Sarcasm!)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Furball

Science had it beginning's in christianty?!?!?!?

 

Christianity is why we had the dark ages!

 

Another colossal wheel barrel of bullshit. 

 

_Catt

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indoctrinated sheep writing for other indoctrinated sheep.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, the pagan double standard of allowing married men to have extramarital sex and mistresses was forbidden.

 

I guess these writers forgot that Jacob (Israel) had four wives in the Book Of Genesis. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science had it beginning's in christianty?!?!?!?

 

Christianity is why we had the dark ages!

 

Another colossal wheel barrel of bullshit.

 

_Catt

Well to be fair, at some early point scientists did do their work to find out how creative God has been, and did make important discoveries. Some went down the weird path though, and thought they wrote mathematical proofs of God and such stuff that was useless then and is useless now. True as well that Christians have destroyed libraries containing old science books, and threatened the lives of scientists who discovered stuff that was contrary to the Bible.

 

Astronomy began for the purposes of the oh-so-sinful astrology btw, but Christians are quiet about that for some reason, heh heh.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

/darthvadervoice=1

 

UNIMPRESSIVE

 

kL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"So extensive is the Christian contribution to our laws, our economics, our politics, our arts, our calendar, our holidays, and our moral and cultural priorities that historian.." 

 

~ from the link

 

 

What is it you disagree with or find so repulsive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christianity stole its art, calendar and holidays from other religions, and thus generally served a familiar product in a new packaging. That's a well known marketing rule still being used.

 

Someone doing this and claiming to be original is dishonest. Dishonesty in a thing that people build their entire lives around is repulsive.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"So extensive is the Christian contribution to our laws, our economics, our politics, our arts, our calendar, our holidays, and our moral and cultural priorities that historian.." 

 

~ from the link

 

 

What is it you disagree with or find so repulsive?

 

 

That whole statement is a lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"So extensive is the Christian contribution to our laws, our economics, our politics, our arts, our calendar, our holidays, and our moral and cultural priorities that historian.." 

 

~ from the link

 

 

What is it you disagree with or find so repulsive?

 

 

That whole statement is a lie.

 

I disagree MM. The good ol' US of A was founded on the idea that "this is what you shouldn't do as a Christian church" and we split from the "Christian" church of England. So instead of being the role model, England became the horrible example. Sadly, it seems that we have returned to that which we tried to get away from. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"So extensive is the Christian contribution to our laws, our economics, our politics, our arts, our calendar, our holidays, and our moral and cultural priorities that historian.." 

 

~ from the link

 

 

What is it you disagree with or find so repulsive?

 

It's not about repulsiveness or even disagreeing with it. It's about a one-sided, one-seasoned view of history. The person that wrote it obviously believes that Christianity is the only belief system that could possibly have any merit or truth. People need to understand that there is more than one way to live a "right" life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No agreement, at all, here with me I guess.

 

Okay, lets try this:

 

If our U.S. laws are not based on the Judeo-Christian belief system,

 

then what are they based on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No agreement, at all, here with me I guess.

 

Okay, lets try this:

 

If our U.S. laws are not based on the Judeo-Christian belief system,

 

then what are they based on?

 

The British culture - the system of common law.

 

 

And Christian calendar?

 

 

Sun day

Moon day

Tiwes day

Wodnes  day

Thor's day

Frigg day

Saturn day 

 

Your calendar is pagan.

 

Christmas is the pagan holliday of Yule.

Easter is the pagan holliday of Ostara.  (Pronounced exactly like the modern word "Easter")

 

All your holidays were originally pagan.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pagan?

 

Like I didn't know this?

 

So what? It doesn't bother me.

 

That's what I love about the Christian faith, it transcends all of this. It doesn't matter.

 

 

Back to the topic:

 

I was asking about what our U.S. laws were based on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pagan?

 

Like I didn't know this?

 

So what? It doesn't bother me.

 

That's what I love about the Christian faith, it transcends all of this. It doesn't matter.

 

 

Back to the topic:

 

I was asking about what our U.S. laws were based on.

 

So when you quoted the link in post 9 you already knew the quote was wrong.  This is on topic.

 

"So extensive is the Christian contribution to our laws, our economics, our politics, our arts, our calendar, our holidays, and our moral and cultural priorities that historian.." 

 

And I have answered what our U.S. laws were based on - British culture and British common law.  However I am told Louisiana law is based on French culture.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Furball

 

That's what I love about the Christian faith, it transcends all of this. It doesn't matter.

 

 

The wonderful thing about the christian faith is it also transcends all the evidence against it, as well as common sense, basic logic, science,  anthropology, archaeology, astronomy, astrophysics, biology, botany, chemistry, cosmology, ecology, embryology, entomology, evolution, genetics, geology, herpetology, mathematics, paleontology, plate tectonics, radiometric dating, and zoology. 

 

That's what i love about you zany christians. No evidence, no facts, no logic, no proof, no problem! Like ironhorse says, it doesn't matter. 

 

Yay make believe!

 

Magical thinking: because without it, christianity can't exist. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pagan?

 

Like I didn't know this?

 

So what? It doesn't bother me.

 

That's what I love about the Christian faith, it transcends all of this. It doesn't matter.

 

 

Back to the topic:

 

I was asking about what our U.S. laws were based on.

 

Yes.  Exactly...Ironhorse.

.

.

.

Your faith transcends (denies) the actual facts and the evidence.

Your faith prevents you from accepting any fact or item of evidence that contradicts it.

Accepting any contradictory facts as true would imperil your faith, so you refuse to do it.

.

.

.

You and I have been here before.  

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62720-no-shit-sherlock/page-26#.VaVetPlVhHw

.

.

.

Religion, faith and supernatural beliefs (like Christianity) are not the basis of science.

As I wrote to you July 15 last year...

 

Science does not require any input from any religious belief system to function properly.

Therefore, Christian thought is not necessary to help, assist, pioneer or be the driving force behind science.

The fact that many Western scientists were also Christians was incidental to their scientific work.

If Christian thought was necessary in any way for science to work, then the Golden Age of Islamic science (which pre-dated the Renaissance) would have required the input of Christian thought to flourish.  Clearly it didn't.  

.

.

.

I also note that there are five (5) outstanding points in post # 510 that require your attention, Ironhorse.

 

Since that 'Sherlock' thread is locked I'd be happy to restart it so that you can deal with your unfinished business.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pagan?

 

Like I didn't know this?

 

So what? It doesn't bother me.

 

That's what I love about the Christian faith, it transcends all of this. It doesn't matter.

 

 

Back to the topic:

 

I was asking about what our U.S. laws were based on.

 

MyMistake answered you, Ironhorse.

.

.

.

To his input I'd add this...

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/founding-fathers-we-are-n_b_6761840.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA,

 

I read the Huffington Post article.

 

I agree. America was NOT founded to be a Christian theocracy.

 

They were way too smart to go the way of the marriage Church and State like England and Europe.

 

The first sentence of the Declaration of Independence does, however, state

that our fundamental rights as humans come from God, not man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA,

 

I read the Huffington Post article.

 

I agree. America was NOT founded to be a Christian theocracy.

 

They were way too smart to go the way of the marriage Church and State like England and Europe.

 

The first sentence of the Declaration of Independence does, however, state

that our fundamental rights as humans come from God, not man.

Nature's God, Ironhorse.   Nature's God.   It says our rights come from nature and nature's God.  In your mind, that might mean Jesus, but that's not what they said or implied. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No agreement, at all, here with me I guess.

 

Okay, lets try this:

 

If our U.S. laws are not based on the Judeo-Christian belief system,

 

then what are they based on?

I'll give two counterexamples.

 

1. charging interest.  There are many Bible verses that say that one is not to lend money at interest, either to a brother who is poor or simply to a brother. Deut. 23:19-20 say a Jew can charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother.

 

2. going to court.  The NT says that Christians are not to bring actions against other Christians in civil courts but go to the elders of the congregation.

 

American law does not adhere to either of these dicta.

 

It won't work to say, well, back then everyone was Christian, because that is not the case.  For starters, Jews have been in America since early in the colonial period.  And some denominations in colonial America and the early USA did not regard other denominations as their Christian brothers (e.g. Puritans even executed several Quakers).

 

English common law has influences from Germanic tribal law and from Roman law.

 

-------------------------------

 

adding:

 

Until Ironhorse specifies what he means by "based on," this line of discussion can't go very far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Dude's right, Ironhorse.

 

Here's how it reads. (Highlighting is mine.)

.

.

.

IN CONGRESS,  July 4, 1776.

 

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

 

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

.

.

.

The second sentence is to be read in the context of the first, because the first establishes which God is being referred to by the assembly on that day. 

 

This is not the Judaeo-Christian God of the Bible. 

It is Nature and the Natural, not the super-natural.

 

Clear, now?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and one point of the Declaration's language is that human rights do not take their origin from the pleasure of the sovereign/state/rulers.  They are inherent as part of human nature.

 

 

The Declaration also knows nothing of a future and limiting list of rights.  The words "among these" are important.  The Scalia/Thomas demand that a "right" be shown to be explicitly spelled out in the Constitution is out of synch with the intent of the founders.  But that's another topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.