Stop being Christian

Because it emphasises the fact that you think the question is stupid; it makes the question seem rhetorical, thus insinuating that the person asking it is a retard. Meaning you are right and they are wrong.

I feel similarly.

My main problem with Christianity is the universalism (we are all the same, there is no race, love everyone equally, etc.) I don't like the racial blindness and egalitarianism.

On the other hand, Paganism feels like LARPing and the 'gods' are little more than story/myths which you can't actually believe in like the personal God of Christianity. But it, unlike Christianity, is actually of European origin.

That shits new age Christianity pretty much, there's not a trace of it in the bible unless faggots cherry pick verses.

I think it was Spengler who said: "Christianity is the great grand-mother of Marxism." I agree about the universalist doctrine; but I find the element of redemption very appealing.

As for Paganism- if you dislike the pantheistic principle, it's certainly fine to identify the various deities as representations of archetpyical ideals. Odin, the sage; Thor, the warrior; Loki, the trickster etc…

I feel like my current approach of treating spirituality like a buffet is just unhealthy. There is a part of me that is even very attracted to the Vedic teachings of the Hindu. I suppose this is partially the result of living in a divided and chaotic time and society. There IS no unifying faith; only the atheistic doctrines of cultural Marxism and political correctness.

You do get to suck all those cocks though, that must be some consolation

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
That applies to all humans. It doesn't matter if you are an African or European if you believe in Jesus and follow the Bible.
Both are the same in Christianity. Racism of any kind is not tolerated. That includes "race realism" and the belief that DNA determines behavior.

Nice New International Bible cherry picked quote there m8
Like I said , new age Christianity.

Try the real version with the next line added
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Which basically says we all get to be jews

Hooray for getting to larp as a bunch of genocidal sandniggers. Oh wait, slaughtering entire villages is acceptable when it's the Chosen People™ "reclaiming" the Promised Land®.

No, Christianity was adopted by most of Europe voluntarily. It wasn't forced on people until the missionaries reached the middle east and Africa. Try learning history before you talk about it.

Your parents were uneducated hippies.

Samefag here, clarification: European (i.e. Catholic) missionaries. There were obviously Christians in the middle east already, but it was the Catholics who started the "conversion by force" thing.

That's funny, considering Charlemagne had thousands of Norsemen slaughtered for refusing to accept Christianity. It's also odd how Pagans who continued practicing their traditional folk religions were burned and tortured as witches!

It's almost like you're full of shit.

...

The problem I have with every religion is that you can either find its origin and point to a huge expanse of time in which these supposedly powerful gods didn't bother to make themselves known, or prove that the things being worshipped are easily explained phenomena.

Religion is a civilization's training wheels. It was useful when we were in development, but has no place now that we can examine the world around us and say exactly why it is the way it is.

...

...

Holla Forums is a christian board user

I live in northern eu, Lithuania. We were the last europeans who were forcefuly christianised.
Yeah, check your own history knowledge, faggot

The saying goes: dig many holes, and you get no where.

Jew

...

Considering that Jesus was a hard core communist it's less cherry picking and more industrial cherry farming.

I like to consider myself culturally Pagan, like how people view themselves as culturally Christian, without actually believing in the mythology part of it. The values which paganism espouses build a strong character, whereas Christianity…
 Luke 6:27–31 KJV
The only good part of these passages is treat others as you want to be treated:
but it doesn't make up for the extreme, self destructive pacifism which Jesus preached.

Read The Golden Bough and you will realize how horribly wrong you are. The Pagan gods and traditions run so deep that you may not be able to fully comprehend it. Sadly people are not taught about the beauty of Pagan religions of man and think that it's just some sort of pre-christian larpfest. It's so much more than that.

Hinduism is a great religion. If you are a Pagan or like Paganism then you should learn as much as you can about Hinduism as it reveals a lot of the Pagan religions since is is such an old and quite well preserved religion. Hinduism is a very good and important Indo-European religion that has helped me a lot with my studies in comparative mythology.

Wow, you're right. Looking to dead people's religion is really a crucial factor in determining what I should do in 2017.

There are many Pagan pantheons, not just the Norse pantheon. They're all the same gods, simply with different names. If you're European, wherever you come from has some kind of Pagan past.

Example: Thor - Norse, but is the same as Jupiter who is Roman, Thunor which is Anglo-Saxon, etc.

Yeah, I don't like drinking water or eating food either, because all those dead people did that. It's so antiquated, I would rather just starve or die of dehydration.

Nice strawman.

The universalism is the one aspect I can't agree with. It would be a bit better if we could apply the Christian ideas but universal becomes 'only towards other Europeans'.

...

Not entirely accurate but the general concept is accurate enough. The gods of different mythologies are not equal to each other with the only difference being their names. For example in Greek mythology some of the attributes of Zeus are lightning and thunder but in Norse mythology lightning is an attribute of Loki and Thunder an attribute of Thor. Zeus is also the Sky Father (an important concept in comparative mythology) but in Norse mythology this was most likely an attribute to the one handed god Tyr whose name is cognate to Zeus. It would be more accurate to look at it in the sense that the closer the mythologies are to each other, both geographically and in relation to time, the more similar the gods are.

Even if you are not European, your ancestors had some form of a religion that they naturally developed throughout their evolution. This is the natural way, the evolved way, for your people to look at the world. Even the niggers had a 'pagan' religion before they became Christians.

Can you FUCK OFF op!!??!!…

Odin is GAY!!…

I am a pagan.

Because I'm not LARPing when I claim I'm an antisemite.
Why would I be a member of the abrahamic religion.

But you still use the Bible verbatim, just like all the other denominations?

Right.

The heathens back then were tortured gruesomely and burned alive.

What's YOUR/THEIR excuse?

Also, Paganism has never been conquered.
It's a bit like the Catholic church. It perseveres (which makes sense, since the Catholic church is the denomination with the most pagan elements)

PRAISE KEK

So you'r telling me the "brave powerfull" pagans were exterminated by the "week"christians? What a bunch of whimps

From Rome came things other than Christianity, such as their advanced strategy and tactics, single unified military, whereas the Pagans they were going up against organised in tribes, not entire empires, so didn't present as a unified force, which made them much easier to defeat. Nothing to do with christianity or Paganism.

Fair. There are some poeple who claim that christianity is weakness and paganism strenght and i was curious how such a person would explain the total defeat of the pagans.

...

Not really total defeat if pagans still exist today, and when you have an expansionist empire constantly attacking your tribal community, you'll eventually opt for compromise to make the pricks leave you alone.
As for the claims that Christianity is weak, obviously if you look at the power that the Catholic church, Russian orthodox, Anglicans, etc. have held throughout their history, they were not weak, but when you look at the Bible, especially the New Testament, it espouses weakness, like this post shows

Not to mention the command that Christians have ignored all throughout history, thou shalt not kill; if the empires actually followed Christianity rather than using it to control the masses, they would never have held power.

The pagans were defeated at that time. The ones you have now are larpers who are actually atheists that know close to nothing about the actual beliefs of those pagans. Modern pagganism is just romanticis of the past.
yes, if you'r to weak to defend yourself you will abandon your beliefs (not compromise like you said)
if it espouses weakness then why did christian europe defeat countless pagan nations (european and otherwise)?
You make a very subjective claim that contradicts reality.
it means you shouldn't commit murder, this is basic stuff. only someone who's totally ignorant of christianity would make such a claim.

Some may be atheists, but many are not, and of course none would claim they worship just like the original pagans, it's acknowledged that modern neopaganism is a reconstructed religion.
Well it was a compromise, many European Christian rituals have roots in paganism, they didn't convert easily.
Because they didn't follow Christianity; see and imagine trying to run a country like that. Wouldn't happen. I'd love to hear your interpretation of those verses.
How so?
Which the Empires of Christianity did time and time again. They didn't rise to power by

And which Europeans do you think forced Christianity on the lesser races?

Dues Vult, bitch

That's some compromise, rejecting the essence of your beliefs but maintaining supperficial aspects that don't contradict christianity.
The claim that christianity espouses weakness. Which contradicts the reality that christian europe managed to witstand islam, conquer the pagans and most of the globe. But you'l probably say that europe would have conquered the world even faster without christianity wight? No way that your own understanding of the faith is wrong.
You don't seem to understand the difference betwen murder and killing. Murder is unjustified killing. Fighting in war is not murder (if the cause is just), self defense is not murder. Defending your family and nation is certainly not murder, and is outright demanded from a christian.
You can't just take sound bites out of the Bible, it has to be taken as a whole. So yes, give to others what they ask, be charitable but not in such a way that causes harm to others that depend on you.
This just shows your complete ignorance and insincerity when in comes to christianity. This obviously refers to abandoning your pride and not taking revenge if someone offends you (slapping is used as an insult, even today, not a sign that someone wants to kill you). Doesn't mean you shouldn't defend yourself or others.
same thing as the first quote. be charitable with your own things. Also has to do with abandoning pride and not taking vengence for petty things.
Don't see the problem with this. unless by love you understand unconditional submission (in wich case you'r a cuck). Christian love is something else.
same as above

But a compromise none the less; the alternative was death, and many of them were christian in name only.
Yet mud hut African villages which had Christianity brought to them are mud hut African villages centuries later. Obviously not the christianity that did it.
Strawman, and you're failing to point out how Christianity actually led to faster colonisation that wouldn't have occurred naturally as nations get more powerful and seek more wealth.
Where does it say thou shalt conquer most of the globe? Every time the Europeans conquered, there was murder. Also please remember, if you say that all the achievements of Europeans are as a result of christianity, you have to take the good with the bad, which means that you're saying that for christianity to be successful, it needs to break it's own commandments, e.g. the one about not killing.
It became unjustified as soon as they left their homeland and decided everyone else needed to be christian.

cont.
The quote from the other anons post was a verse, quoting jesus directly.
Yeah fuck that, my disposable income is for me to do with as I see fit, not to give to anyone who asks for it. You're going to have a lot of people depending on you with this attitude widely in place. Thankfully vast majority of christians don't follow it because they know that the bible isn't infallible.
If you have a qualification which gives you authority in the field, please let me know, until then, opinion discarded.
Interpreting gods word to justify what other Christians haven't done now are we? It clearly says that when you are attacked by someone (unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek), to present them another opportunity to attack you (offer also the other). Nothing about defending yourself, or revenge or offense.
>same thing as the first quote. be charitable with your own things. Also has to do with abandoning pride and not taking vengence for petty things.
Look at all the powerful churches; they aren't charitable, they have massive buildings made with gold, expensive paintings and artistry, meanwhile on the streets surrounding them there are beggars. Christians don't do this, especially not the ones who rose to power.
That quote is being a cuck, doing good to those who hate you is setting yourself up for disaster.
"pray for them which despitefully use you (don't do anything about it when someone is using you, just pray and hope for the best)

I'm sure you know the verse I'm referring to about the eye of a needle and a camel I think it was? Where do you think kings and popes and all that lot at the top go when they die?
Also, how was the Massacre of Verden, a part of the campaign to make christians of Pagans, in line with Christianity. What about burning 'witches'? The Inquisition? Remember, these are all christianity's fault in some way if European colonialism was thanks to christianity in some way.

ODIN is the one true god

Nice meme

way too obvious

Hail Odin

What you said here makes no sense. What do you mean take good with the bad. And you don't need to break christian commandements. killing is not against christianity.
No, it didn't. The european expansion is pretty complex, and i'm not saying of course that everything that was done was good, but in general, european expansion had a good influence on the rest of the world, so it was justified.
That's not what I mean. obviously it's quoting Jesus, but you have to take the message of the Bible as a whole. You can't read one verse in a vacume, and ignore all the others. That's why i said you are dishonest (with yourself), because it doesn't take a genious to realize this. The bible shouldn't be read like some algorithm for human behaviour, if you read it honestly and take human nature into account, the message is quite obvious, and your missunderstanding of christianity becomes ridiculous.
Of course it's yours, no one sais you should be forced to give to charity (it wouldn't be charity anymore), don't know why you even wrote that.
>You're going to have a lot of people depending on you with this attitude widely in place.
If your actions cause people to become lazy and dependent than you are causing them harm (you become a bad influence), so that's not the christian thing to do. But this refers mostly to those who are truly helpless, and I belive promotes self sacrifice.
See, this is what I mean that you shouldn'r just take sound bites from the Bible. You should follow all of the christian teachings, not in this autistic way that you seem to understand, where you read a quote and follow it with horse glasses on, disobeying more teachings in the process and totally going against the deeper meaning of the christian teachings.
Actually, I don't , so my answers here will be sub optimal, keep that in mind.

Saying that slapping is a threat to someone is also an interpretation of God's word. Interpretation is unavoidable, we should try to find the most reasonable and consistent interpretation.
Again, a slap is not an attack. It was understood for most of human history and still is (in uncucked countries that have an idea about human nature and the way people behave) a sign of disrespect.
>Nothing about defending yourself, or revenge or offense.
Almost like the Bible isn't written for autists, expects you to realize that slapping is not a threat to someone's life. Have you ever gotten into figths at school? Has someone ever slapped you?
No one starves to death, even in poor estern european countries. So what, we should give homes and pay allowance to every homeless bum before we can build places of worship and create works of art? Are you a communist? An yes, chrches ar charitable, they feed the poor weakly, how ignorant are you?
Christians aren't charitable? I'm beginning to think you'r trully authistic. Charity (as understood today) is a christian concept. Many christians donate to charity, including many rich ones.
So i guess you do understand love as submission. Doing good means setting people on the right path, not allowing the to do what they want, you complete cuck.
literally doesn't say that. you'r just making shit up. Praying and action are not mutually exclusive.

At this point I'm pretty sure you'r some kid with strict religious parents and that's why you have such an emotional and irrational opposition to christianity. The stuff you write reeks of dishonesty and indifference to the truth. Most of these questions could have been answered with a quick google search, if you were at all interested in the meaning of life.

...

Because I refuse to worship something that doesn't exist. Now fuck off.

you seem to think the success of europe is thanks to christianity, but dont provide evidence for this. why is it christianity, and not say, the superiority of the white race, the environment they live in, etc. etc.. As I said before, if it is christianity that leads to success, why are mud hut villages in africa that adopted christianity not successful? maybe its because christianity doesnt dictate your chance of success, but rather a variety of factors, some of which may have been encompassed by the church (but not necessarily by the bible, e.g. the murder of pagans who wouldnt convert), but which are no means exclusive to it.
the end doesnt justify the means, thats a childish way of thinking. it's good to see you can admit that christianity isnt infalliable though
well you need to, because many contradict each other
so all those preachers who recite bible verses are dishonest to themselves and christianity? you arent refuting the stupidity verse i pointed out, you aren't proving how the context of it justifies it, you're dodging the point by hiding behind the bible, sad
the bible says to give to those who ask of you, the bible (which you view as the supreme word of god as a christian) says to do that. of course i dont need to because i'm not christian, but if you are, you do need to. arguing against the bible?

why is it not the christian thing to do? it literally says to give to those who ask, there is no asterisk saying "except in this circumstance, only in this circumstance" thats you saying that, not christianity. if it does say anything else in the bible, it contradicts this verse, which explicitly states to give to those who ask; not very impressive for the divine text of an omnipotent god
show me the verse which backs up what you said about not letting people become dependent on you. enlighten me about the rest of the bible and how it btfo of what i'm saying, rather than just telling me that it does and expecting me to believe it.
well if you could drop the arrogant assumtion that i dont understand christianity because it doesnt align with your perspective of it, that'd be great
the verse didnt mention anything about self-defence, you added that yourself. the only interpretations i made were directly in line with the text, equating a slap to mean an attack, and turning the other cheek to mean presenting yourself for another attack, whereas you pulled self defence out of no where. again, if it is mentioned elsewhere in the bible, please share, but that will also be highlighting a contradiction in the text
citation fucking needed
if you're going to be a good christian and follow your book, if they ask you for it, yes you should. and no, i dont advocate for this, so dont go calling me a communist, i'm pointing out how retarded it is.

Wrong

i didnt deny this, i just said that it isnt very charitable to allow people to be living on the streets while spending money on frivolous designs. again, eye of a needle, camel, rich man, ring any bells? i notice you chose not to respond to this part
christians are not charitable, individual christians may be, but to say all are is retarded. i see you're turning to insults now that you're having a hard time justifying parts of the bible, sad
again, citation needed, people gave to the poor before jesus got hammered
do good has many interpretations, and if someone hated me, doing them good would be the last thing on my mind because i'm not a self-destructive kind of person. i do good to those who do good to me, or who have some sort of special place in my life.
wow, with the insults again, void of any argument! i dont advocate for christianity, this is your book saying to do good to people who hate you!
where does it say to take action.
no argument yet again, why do you so desperately want to turn this into a shit flinging contest instead of a discussion of various verses and their meaning and if the actions of various prominent christian organisations are justified by the bible?
distinct lack of argument, yet again. i could say the same to you.
just about any question can be answered by google, or you can choose to have a discussion about it. besides, as a christian it is your duty to explain christianity to me, dont go trying to weasel out of it and hide behind google
how you interpret the meaning of life is of no interest to me. the answers you have given rely on your very flexible reinterpretation of the verses, that is, when you provided an answer at all

is being a Pagan more beneficial than being a Christian? if yes, how so?

fuck off

Certainly not just because of christianity, but it did play a part. In any case, my main point is that it's absurd to say that christianity espouses weakness when christian countries conquered the world.
that's a wierd way of looking at things. The means are included in the ends in my view. And the result of european expansion are mostly positive. So the expansion is morally justified.
Christianity IS perfect, i don't know why you think i said otherwise. When I said that not everything that was done was good, that's because people are imperfect, and a lot of people didn't follow christianity, despite being european.
No they don't. Show me how they contradict. Areyou a Bible schoolar? You seem very confident that all the brilliant people that studied the bible throughout the ages are a bunch of idiots who follow a self-contradictory ideology. Considering some of the absurd and ignorant assumpitons you'v made so far, I would say you confidence is unfounded.
The "preachers" who just spout Bible verses to justify their point of view are as moronic, dishonest and ignorant as you seem to be.
I did refute your moronic interpretation of the quoted verses (don't know if you'r reffering to one in particular), by pointing out that you need to read them in context, and take into account human nature and not be autistic, I don't know why you ignore that.
The context is the whole Bible and christian philosophy. i can't proove it in a comment (and i wouldn't know how). That's work that you have to do on your own.
Butthis is pretty tipycal lazy atheist arguemntation("I don't need to do any research, I can just contradict you and it's your job to proove me right")..
the Bible is the argument (and not just the Bible, but the whole christian theology), since it is the context in which the quotes need to be understood.

i'm not arguing against the Bible. I agree with what's being said. But If I don't take the other christian teaching into account, then I would be arguing against the bible. The Bible only contradicts itself if you take every sentace as an absolute, self standing law, that can't be disobayed under any circumstance (read everything in a vacume). But you would have to be litarlly autistic to belive this, and that's not healthy behaviour. If you think this is the case, then please explain why, as far as I know, every other writing in human history is interpreted as a whole, why make an exception for the Bible?
I was going to respond to every point you made, but now I relize It's pointless. You don't care about the truth. You want the Bible to be some sort of autistic manual, but all other writings are interpreted as a whole (as mentioned before), not just peacemeal. So why do you make an exception for the Bible. by your rules, nothing could be expressed, because you would have to make an exception and separate case for every single possible circumstance.
Clearly, you are dishonest.
Not MY perspective, the prespective of schoolars and holy church fathers, who know more about it that you or me. Educate yourself If you really care about finding the truth.
I live in eastern europe, what planet are you from?
Where does it say? Where does it say to breathe? It alligns with christian worldview and it is talked about by christian fathers.
My point is you don't care enough to do basic research, but you are certain that you'r right despite your ignorance. typical atheist.
As a participant in a conversation it's your duty to be informed before taking a hard stance, but like most atheists you treat christians like an answering machine and think you cann get away with being lazy and ignorant.
Not MY interpretation, but that of the holy fathers.

i'm going to sleep, so I won't be able to respond any time soon, but I think it would be pointless anyway, since you don't seem to care enouth to do basic research.
.

Just noticed that you still haven't explained any of this:
Also, how was the Massacre of Verden, a part of the campaign to make christians of Pagans, in line with Christianity. What about burning 'witches'? The Inquisition? Remember, these are all christianity's fault in some way if European colonialism was thanks to christianity in some way.
But I don't expect you too, because it was mentioned a few posts ago, so it's obvious you're just ignoring inconvenient facts. Not to mention you haven't addressed all my points in your current response. But you know that your arguing in bad faith, so there is no use pointing this out to you.
Again, you don't mention what aspects of christianity led to this success, you just say it played a part. All it did was act as a unifying force, no different to how say, the Persian Empire unified much of the near and middle east, or how the Roman Empire reached its level of power before christianity, or how Islam has done the same in the middle east now. You say that because of its success, it can espouse weakness. This assumes that the followed the bible to the letter, which as I have proven by pointing out the contradictory actions which they took (see my above paragraph), they didn't.
As I asked earlier but you refused to acknowledge, what does this have to do with christianity? nothing. it's to do with powerful nations looking to expand their sphere of influence. Spreading the word of god is an excuse used to justify it and make it appear altruistic, and ultimately make the people of the conquered nation culturally the same as you. christianity was no more than a tool used to execute this.
you claimed that there were all sorts of exceptions to needing to give to those who ask, turning the other cheek, etc. and I asked you to prove it. You havent done this. Either they dont exist, in which case christianity is poor little white guyed, or they do, and they contradict the absolutist perspective on these issues given by jesus.
If you would like me to point out general contradictions in the bible, just ask and I'll find some for you, but if you don't want to see them, dont ask, and I wont waste my time finding them.

More personal attacks and lack of argument.
the verses i'm referring to are the 4 or so which we have been discussing, not hard to realise this. Show me the context of them which justifies them.
"you have to read the whole bible before you can begin to argue about the bible." yeah, fuck off. you are making the claim that there is context which justifies them, but arent providing it, beyond "read the bible lmao"
If I can contradict a verse in the bible, it is your job to prove how it is not a contradiction, not my job to prove my own argument wrong. Do you understand how having an argument works?
see above, your job is to provide the context, not mine, burden of proof lies upon the claimant, and you are the one claiming the context justifies said verses.
You agree with whats being said, except for the fact that you think there are circumstances where you can fight back, or not give to he who asketh, and you can't provide the proof of this. typical christian

I don't want the bible to be anything, I want you to show me how those 4 or so verses arent the absolute poor little white guyoldry which they are when they stand alone, beyond dodging the question and telling me to read the bible, and then i'll magically understand it.
says the fag who doesnt address points when it's inconvenient to do so, and who says the bible justifies hitting back, not giving to those who ask, but cant show the part which supports this claim.
I guess I should ask an imam or caliph about the truth of islam as well. Or I can read verses from the bible and objectively analyse them for their worth, and when i find something that seems pretty shit ask a christian who should be able to explain why it is not so if the bible is infallible, but apparently you cannot, your response is to tell me to waste days of my time reading a fairy tale and then i'll understand it. that's not an argument, its dodging it entirely
i dont care where you live, i want some proof, because your personal experience means jack shit to me

if we were all informed, we wouldnt need to argue, we'd just know, but we don't know, so we argue and discuss to figure it out. as a christian you should be glad to explain the scriptures to someone and spread the word of god, but instead you're being a little bitch about it, and even though i have researched, including when i was a christian, and have presented you with verses which i discovered while researching, you cant provide any biblical explaination which proves my interpretation of them wrong

apart from the verses which i wanted you to explain, but am instead met with "read the bible" like a typical christian who cant face even the most basic of criticism, sad

hope you dont miss any of my points if they're too inconvenient for you, and maybe you'll even find it in yourself to address the other arguments in my earlier posts which you ignored; i've responded to each of your points, would be nice if you could do the same instead of being a little bitch and ignoring it

This conversation seems to be going in circles. You keep saying give me the context, and don't want to acknoladge that christianity is a theology and has to be understood as a whole.
You'r pretty much assuming that all the brillian christians throughout the centuries were dumb enough to follow a self contradictory religion. Show some modesty, you'r not smarted than Newton. And the bible can't contradict itself, if it does you just interpert it in a moronic way. You can do that with everything if you take it out of context (if you don't want to understand something but just hate it for emotonal reasons).
Yah, how absurd of me to suggest you read the actual Bible if you want to understand it. Or the writings of the holy fathers (the philokalia) for the correct interpretation.
The proof is that the bible would contradict itself if that quote was taken as an absolute rule regardless of circumstances.
If say Trump make two statements that apparenty contradict eachother, you can either say he's a moron because of it, or you can say, well clearly he's reffering to different circumstances and there are subtleties there that he doesn't state explicitly, but clearly he means A. If you just go with the first option, you just don't want to understand it.
Same with the Bible and most theological and philosophical writings in human history.
Well yah, you should obviously, they are a higher authority than you. You can of course reinterpret the Quran in your own way, but that wouldn't be Islamic teaching, and you couldn't use you interpretation as an argument agains Islam(since it's not what they belive). This applies of course to christianity and every other religion and metaphisical view.
That is impossible. You can not objectivley interpret them, it wouldn't be an interpretation that way. Thaking something literally and out of context is not objective. you don't even seem to know what objectivity is and when it applies. The only thing objective are the actual words written , the interpretation is not.

You want proof that something DIDN't happen? That is a logical fallacy.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
For someone so objective you sure make embaressing mistakes. This is basic stuff friend, don't know how you can fuck it up and then pretend you know better than all christian scholars.
But getting back to the main point on this, the churches do feed the poor and make donations, so even if someone were to starve to death(somehow) it surely wouldn't happen if the church (or literally anyone) could do something about it. The idea that people starve to death in modern society is just so bizzare. You'r pretty much saying "you can't proove peopel don't starve, so the church is evil".
That's so idiotic. Do you know how a debate workd? It's not just about sharing facts,you get your facts beforehand. A debate is about the interpretation of the facts and reaching a conclusion.
Yah, muh people who are an authority. Again, look at what I said about Islam above.

As for your quote about the camel (wich you could have searched yourself):
neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/in-matthew-1924-what-does-the-eye-of-the-needle-actually-mean/
I already explained the others as best as I can (imperfectly).

Don't even know what you'r saying here. And I already talked about those verses, as you know.
I don't respond to all your points because they just seem to ignore my previous responses. You seem to have a lack of understanding of objectivity and can't seem to deal with abstraction, so it's pretty annoying seeing the same thing stated over and over again. I'm also dissapointed you ignored the most important part:

why should i replace one faux belief with another one, that's even shittier & promotes the the false idea of morality being relative?

you still havent responded to one of my early points, and many of the other points I have made, so if you won't do me the courtesy of responding to my arguments (especially when I request you to do so and you ignore them) i see no reason to return the favour.

What points exactly? the ones I didn't respond to were redundant (you could apply the same argument i made for other points).

even when it required repetition, i responded to every point you made. you did not do the same, refused to address several points such as the camel one (which you didnt refute, you posted a link; explain it yourself, i can sit here all day and post clips of dawkins debating christians and call that my argument, doesn't prove anything though), and likely countless others, but i havent the effort to go through each point i made and check you responded to it

you know what, you win, you've outautisted me, i could respond to each of your points, you do the same, neither of us convince the other, and carry on, but i cbf anymore

But I don't expect you too, because it was mentioned a few posts ago, so it's obvious you're just ignoring inconvenient facts. Not to mention you haven't addressed all my points in your current response. But you know that your arguing in bad faith, so there is no use pointing this out to you.
Maybe you'r reffering to this. I didn't respond because you just throw a bunch of unrelated things at me , and some points are particularily idiotic.
Don't know much about this actually. maybe it wasn't.
many witches were sacrificing children, so it was justified. Maybe some were innocent, and it was wrong. (obviously)
No, they are not. Since they go against christian teaching. I guess you could say that sure, a few pagans wouldn't have been killed for religious reasons without christianity (I'm guessing this is your point). But in such a timeline. many more would have died for other reasons, since christian morality would not constrain people from doing fucked up things.
So I really don't see your point here.

What, why?
Why do I haveto explain it myself?
I don't even know how to do it. And besides, why does it matter?

Protip: All religion is LARPing.

But christpoor little white guys can't admit it because they LARP the hardest.

I learned something today. /christian/ shills argue like regular shills, which are jewish. There must be some connection to jewish shills, wouldn't you say?

Makes sense. Most of them don't care about race mixing >>>/christian/371156

Vikings were no better, they would kidnap European women and sell them as sex slaves to arabs.

We're equal in terms of the fact that we have sinned and that we can all be saved in only one way. Saying races are different is not racism.

they also pioneered trading, discovered north america, and not to mention that slavery was not unique to the vikings; it was widely practiced, the vikings were just better at it.
viking also refers to a profession, not a race or ethnicity, just like not all christians were crusaders, or not all the british, spanish, dutch were pirates

Friendly reminder that Holla Forums thinks it can divide and conquer by promoting neopagan vs. Christian conflict.

not such a big deal, certainly doesn't make up for slavery.
Yes, by arabs, africans and the such. how many christian kingdoms raided other europeans, kidnapped women and sold them to arabs?

the traderoutes they opened were used for centuries to follow, and along them great cities and nations were formed, such as what evolved into russia, i think it's a pretty big deal. and of course, nothing makes up for slavery, but it was not only the vikings, it was everyone. up until civil war slavery still existed in west. there was no european identity then either, them being european was irrelevant, not to mention that attacks on their culture and people by christians didnt make them feel good to them anyway. again, not justifying, but all did it. serfdom was just another form of slavery, and the americans and other europeans when christian bought african slaves. why is it different then? it is not

were christian*

They didn't open trade routes, like creating the panama cannal or something like that. Trade routes form naturally, and you can't really credit the vikings for the existance of Russia. It would have existed anyway.
Of course slavery existed, but slaves were more like serfs, and they certainly weren't kidnapped, raped and sold to muslims. Pretty big difference.
There was christian Identity, wich the vikings didn't have it's true. But them not having an european identity is not an excuse. That's like saying, the politicians who promote 3rd world immigration just don't have a european identity, not their fault. The vikings are still not something to be admired.
And like I said before, not comparable to what the vikings did.
of course not, difference is most of the slave traders and owners were jews, and the slaves were not kidnapped, but sold by african tribes (not that it makes a difference really). Also, no one from what I know considers the european slavers as some kind of cool noble guys. The vikings do have admirers on the other hand, and I'm just saying that's unjustified.

holy shit lets not turn this into the big thread of replies further up, keep it short.

they did open trade routes, and they don't open naturally, if vikings didn't set out to trade, the routes would not be opened. here read for more detail en.natmus.dk/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistoric-period-until-1050-ad/the-viking-age/expeditions-and-raids/trade-in-the-viking-period/, they opened up many towns along the route. you say it would have existed anyway, so what, i can say that about anything? rus started out from the norse, and eventually unified the slavic tribes as one. you talk of all viking atrocities, no one denies this, but you cannot say christians are innocent of it, think the northern crusades, massacre of verden, forceful conversion, everything back then was barbaric, not just vikings. not sure what you mean with analogy of 3rd worlders. vikings are not admired for slavery, no one claims this, so not sure what point you think this is making. they are admired for reasons outlined above.

I just masturbated to christian 2d hentai
how does that make you feel, VargRPer?