"NO! SCIENCE HAS PROOF!1!1!1!1!!1"

Copying your message incase you delete it:
"BECAUSE THEY GAVE UP THEIR BELIEF, THAT DOESN'T GIVE THEM A RIGHT TO SWEAR BY HIS NAME, IF ANYTHING NO ONE SHOULD, ESPECIALLY THEM!!!!"

I see, so this isn't just a joke for a meme. Alright then. *Takes deep breath*

It's interesting that you are so upset over culture exchange and how idioms can be co-opted into other culture as if the phrase to represent extreme exhasperation was locked only to Christianity. You also specifically cite the rule on Christianity to not swear by "his" name. This tells me that you are also excluding non-atheists as well. You have just attacked a large set of people with that.

Let's talk about how Christianity co-opted Sol Invictus, which happened on the winter solstice, a pagan holiday and then Nero replaced it with the Christian Holiday you know as Christmas? Or what about the spring equinox which payed homage to the goddes Eostre, the goddess of fertility? Only to have it be replaced by... *gets sick to his stomach.* "Good Friday" the Friday before Easter. Then it was whitewashed into Rabbits (not explaining their meaning) and easter eggs and easter baskets. No mention of Eostre anywhere anymore. Because it was co-opted by Christians.

... *snicker* Karma's a bitch innit?

Lol thanks.

Didn't know it was female. Oh well gender equality.

I very nearly replied to this a few days ago because you implied Nero created a Christian holiday. That jerk despised Christians. He made his holiday on what they believed to be the winter solstice, and Christmas wouldn't be celebrated until 250+ years in the future.

I readily admit the who is rusty. But I do know that Christmas replaced Sol Invictus.

Ah yes, it was Constantine.

Mofo really be writing an essay in a website full of retards

Yep. And because I did that, I found someone worth talking to, you'll find. A based Christian. Doesn't come around too often.

And another quick note:

Why the hell would Nero of all people do anything favoring Christians
He used us as f**king torches

Holidays are located on the same dates as existing events due to how it was simply convenient- upon the creation of the Gregorian calendar, most people observed the existing pagan dates. Gregory XIII did in fact appropriate those dates, but not necessarily for malice, but more for "oh, people already do shit on December 25th." I would assume, anyway.

I would ask for the sake of the more eloquent Christian opponents in your debates, you don't mock Christian holidays. Keep within your bounds, and so long as your opponent has the brain cells to spare, he will keep within his.

Remainder here was not in the right in this situation, and I apologize as a Catholic for his absolute lack of care for the order of a debate.

I often get Nero and Constantine confused.

The precedent for co-option and subversion of religion has been established with the Roman Empire. First, the Greeks, they took their Gods and made their own, then took the Christian religion which (at the time) permitted a priestess/female clergy. Once Romans took over, that changed.

Granted, there is debate on whether or not Sol Invictus was replaced in favor of Christianity, however no one can prove one way or the other. However, there is existing precedent that supports the historical theory, as well as human behavior.

Regardless, this nuance is beside the point as it changes the focus from the notion that the meaning of things change over time. Such as with "Oh my god." or Christmas.

"Oh my God." is now an expression of exasperation, shock, surprise. "Lol" is another word that has had its meaning change in the last ten years, for example.

I tend to avoid letting one person speak for an entire religion, your apology, while appreciated, isn't necessary. I let people be defined by their own actions.

note:
he's not the op lol

Sorry to butt in but Christmas was never a pagan holiday. A lot of people think it is but it's not true at all. It was a holiday created to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ.
And yes. Atheists completely butchered Good Friday and Easter and I hate it. Why are they celebrating the birth of someone they don't believe is the son of God? Also, they celebrate the resurrection of someone who they believe never resurrected?

Uhhmmmm well uh it was actually originally created to ease pagans into christianity

Bro this was two year ago I'm not reviving the argument. Also, that is not true either. Cya

Welp, jst poviding fax

I mean, toddlers can be proud of mud castles, so why not?

Holy shit dude. You are THE funniest person on the internet. Please stop before I die of laughter.

Say what you want, but I quite enjoy my humor, because it's reality

I am concerned over your definition of reality...

which i really cant tell whats real and whats not. like my friends. anyhow, good point

POV: You lost your schizophrenia medication

i dont have meds, but im 99% sure i have the disorder

Can I also ask you a couple questions? I wanna see what kind of Christian you are.

1) Should all homosexuals be put to death?
2) Does the bible talk about masking and social distancing? (That's an easy one, you can google that.)
3) Selling your daughter into slavery is sanctioned in exodus 21:7, what would are some good qualities one looks for in a daughter for slavery...? I can only imagine.
4) Anyone who is caught working on Saturday, per Exodus 35:2, should be put to death. You would agree with that, I imagine.
5) Let's also talk about all the Christian football players in the 20th century who used pig skin for footballs. Leviticus 11:7 talks how touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean.
6) Should we start stoning people for planting different crops side, by side?
7) Do we have to start burning people for wearing a garment that is made from two different threads? (Polyester & cotton)

Could you get back to me on those... please? Your god is so wrathful, I want to make sure not to incur his wrath.

I know this wasn't directed to me, but I'd like to interject from the standpoint of a hopefully unbiased Catholic, and I will try to answer your questions as accurately as possible

1. Obviously not, no real Christian advocates for that, nor is it permitted by the church.
2. I'd like to know which verses you are specifically speaking about, as I've never come across one.
3. In addition to translation errors, I believe this is referring to the fact that a wife in the past had to be subject to her husband and the husband had to care for his wife, as to survive in the wilderness, people were more concerned with natural and physiological authority instead of social authority. To compensate for this seeming imbalance of power, men had more responsibility to protect the family. Also this was not referring to Christianity, but Judaism, which is a completely different topic.
4. Again, the translation makes this complicated. It makes sense to interpret this as merely stating that someone working on a day of rest was a sin, and that it would be God who punished them. Also another Jewish issue, not Christian
5. God abolished this law when he told Peter to eat of the birds and the beasts on the white sheet(Acts 10:9-16).
6. This was a law to prevent cross-contamination of diseases and viruses from one plant to another. A lot of the Old Testament Laws were created with this in mind.
7. Again, this was to protect the people from disease. And no, I think the execution part of this is referring to the fact that committing a sin is evil, and evildoers will be banished from Heaven. Notice how Jesus allows him who has not sinned to cast the first stone, therefore essentially banishing condemnation of another(btw in regards to the death penalty, it is allowed in places that do not have a functioning prison system, but it is only a last resort to protect civilians).

Hopefully that answered your questions and cleared up some of your misgivings about Christianity. Have a nice day :ok_hand:

I will give credit to catholics as they are seeming to become smart to the idea that a certain level of progressivism is needed for an establishment religion to stay alive. The more conservative one is, the more it runs into issues of an ever progressive social setting. Note that these questions were selected not to poke holes in the bible (though it isn't difficult to do so.) but to ask the person who I was speaking to, to start thinking critically. In my interactions with this person, there's been nothing but hostility where none has been given. So, let's address your questions.
I will respond to the questions and leave your original point out to save space. If you need reference, refer to your reply.

1. Obviously not, no real Christian advocates for that, nor is it permitted by the church.
>> Excellent, well said. Does your view encompass all homo-sexuals or just males?
2. I'd like to know which verses you are specifically speaking about, as I've never come across one.
>> There's actually a lot of discussion regarding this issue.
Here's a True or False from a secular standpoint:
https://www.truthorfiction.com/leviticus-1345-46/
And on a completely different line of scripture... Try this one... (many bible books/chapters used including NT)

https://hebraicthought.org/pandemics-in-the-bible-covid19/#:~:text=Leviticus%20says%20to%20separate%20the,%3A45%2C%20my%20translation).

3. From your points, I've noticed a trend in which I take issue. Passing the buck for issues surrounding the old testament, you pass the buck onto Jews or say that it is merely "Old testament" that is no longer valid. Yet, there are plenty of examples where there is material cherry picked from the old testament and put into modern Christian practice.

4. See 3.

5. So you can now eat a calf boiled in its mother's milk? Kinda seems strange to me that God would need to abolish laws or update them. If God is omniscient and ever knowing, why would he need to change his laws? If God is so perfect, why should he send his son to update the land of his teachings? Why can't god get it right the first time? In Old testament, we see him as extremely wrathful. Jesus arrives on scene so god doesn't have to be wrathful anymore. That doesn't sound like someone who knows what is to happen in the future. If that's the case, why would God wait to send his son? If he knew this to be an issue, for whatever reason he waited. Then this comes to the whole idea of free will/god already knows what you're-

.2 - already knows what you're going to do. If he knew this and wasn't going to do anything until such a time, to me that invokes Epicurus' trilemma. That being:

(this has been updated)
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

(On a related but different topic, can God create a stone that he himself cannot lift or destroy?)

6. Skipping to cite #3.
7. It's interesting you cite one of my favorite stories of the bible. "He who is without sin my cast the first stone." Because ironically, the bible is open to interpretation. There are many different ways that this part is interpreted. "Don't judge" or "Don't stone people unless you are without sin" etc. Yet, in spite of all of this, people judge. I would argue that it's human nature, and that's why people do it. Yet, when one can point to christians and cite this issue, you can nearly always watch them try to reinterpret this issue to justify their judging at that moment. I've done it multiple times and each result was the same, to my dismay.

Couple anecdotal issues.

Item 1. Satan is known as the great deceiver.
Item 2. Church has ruled over man before - having more power than the king for a long time.
Item 3. Power corrupts. Period.
Item 1+3. Satan has the nexus in which to corrupt people who are from item 2. To believe that the church had not been corrupted, is naive in my opinion. As you said, the Old Testament speaks on a lot of plagues, which were relevant back then. How is that relevant today? Why should God care about such things when he knows you will overcome plagues? Why is there no word for our era? God was really active before Christ. Jesus came and went. It's been 2k years. 1/3 of the lifetime of this earth According to Christian standards that say the earth is 6k years old.

Item 2+3 The Church writes laws to be followed. They have immense power at their disposal and for many years, the peasantry are unable to read. The church is exempt from criticism of the common man. In some cases, it's illegal to learn to read. (HMMMMMM)

Item 1 + (2 + 3)
What if the greatest lie that Satan ever told was the bible itself? A book which teaches you to live in fear of yourself and your fallibility, to squander your gift of life on this planet worrying about someone who will be around for an eternity? --- more

.3 I won't pretend to be God or pretend to understand what he/she/they feels or thinks. But as a parent, I have serious questions about the personality of God who says "So long as you accept me as your lord and savior, you may come to heaven."

That screams ego. God even admits to being jealous. From a secular standpoint, that seems like a tool used to keep people in your religion so you can keep people paying tithes.
The bible talks about the end times coming when all have been exposed to Christianity and have had the chance to deny it. This is impossible. It also sounds like a tool used to drive recruitment to get more tithes.

How also, can God condemn a soul to hell for an eternity of misery and pain for not accepting him? As a parent, I take serious issue with this. I don't care if my daughters or my son said they hated me or pretended to not know me. I don't care if my children actually end up killing me. I couldn't do this to any child of mine ever: I could never condemn the children I love to an eternity of Hell as colloquially defined in Christian Circles. I disagree with God. I think this is a flaw, and not one I want to endorse or worship.

At the end of the day, this may all be fluid. It may be something to live by or aspire to. Fair enough. But if that's the case, why do we condemn entire people because we don't agree with their life choice and cite the bible as our reasoning? Gays, transsexuals, sinners of all sort. I'll close with how I began.
I recognize that Catholics are more progressive. Kudos. But you guys are still imposing your world views onto others. I take issue with that.

As for the justness of Hell, I do not believe that it is God Himself who punishes evildoers. I think it is the natural inclination of humanity to seek and desire God, as shown throughout innumerable histories. Hell is simply a place where God is not. That is all. God could not welcome someone who hated Him into His house, because that wouldn’t make sense for a just person. In this I refer to the tale Jesus tells of the guests who were late to the bridegroom’s party and were denied access to it because of their failure to arrive properly. They were prevented from seeing the bridegroom, and thus were in a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth, not because He tortured them, but because they were not with Him.

Considering your final question, it is true that Catholics ought to not persecute people who have different beliefs. No Catholic who follows the teachings of the Church has any right to dehumanize anyone like gays or trans people. Just because they are living a sinful life doesn’t mean we have the right to interfere. However, we do have a duty to help people, and if I think someone is making a bad decision, I will try to reason with them. I think Catholics ought to debate using language and referring to things that the person who they are talking to can understand and agree with. It is impossible to connect with someone who believes that the Bible isn’t right. Two people cannot have a civil discussion if they have different premises.
In that sense, I apologize on behalf of Catholics who merely point to the Bible as evidence for why they must be taken seriously, as the Bible means nothing to anyone who isn’t Catholic. A Catholic can only refer to the Bible in a debate with someone who also believes the Bible is true or is at least willing to entertain the possibility. And also, sorry on behalf of the more…let’s just say “zealous” people out there. I understand that their methods of evangelization are not only crude, but also potentially alienating to others.

Forgive me for not replying in fully. The reason I do not desire to reply to you is not out of "defeat" or anything like that. It's simply your hearts in the right place. There are some things I disagree with that you're saying. However, I trust that even in your "help" that you wouldn't push the issue if the individual was resilient in their perspective.

So, I could exert the effort to take things apart in what you said. But as I said earlier to a more zealous user here, My goal here is not to troll or be a jerk, but to ask the individual to think critically about why they hold the values that they do - to understand their religion more before using it in the nefarious manner they were doing earlier. You've got your shit straight, you're not a fundamentalist. I jive with that.

5. It's not that God got it wrong the first time, it's that those laws were set in preparation for the coming of the Messiah, and once Jesus came to us, they were no longer necessary, as they were already fulfilled. In regards to Epicurus' Trilemma:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
True.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
True.
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
True.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
False. Just because I may be perfectly willing and able to stop my son or daughter from making a mistake doesn't mean I will. They must learn to know that there are natural consequences to their actions. And then, when they grow of age to leave me, I will not stop them from making bad decisions, because it is their choice to make those decisions. That’s what free will is all about: we have freedom to do both Good and Evil.
7. It is in human nature to judge. After all, we were given dominion over the earth and were told to rule it well, therefore being anointed judges. That being said, after the Fall, we were(and are still) broken and imperfect. Our souls quite literally have devolved from what they once were. We can’t stop ourselves from judging, we can only try to judge more justly. I cannot justify all of my judgments, nor can you, or anybody for that matter. I think a better way to look at it is in this line: “take the speck from your own eye before you try to remove the log from your friend’s eye.” Jesus isn’t saying to not judge, he is saying we must fix ourselves before we can fix others. A sick doctor cannot care for a sick patient; he must be treated first.

Item 1: True
Item 2: True
Item 3: True
Item 1+3: True. Every human government is flawed, even if it is instituted by God. This is unavoidable, as humans are unable to keep up the lustre with which it was created. Even now, there is controversy as to whether Pope Francis is a good leader. Just because an individual is flawed doesn’t mean that whatever belief system they have is wrong.
As for the age of the earth, that is not a Christian belief. Nowhere does God ever mention how old the earth is. The only reason I believe that the earth is not old enough to produce Reason through chance is what I have learned in my science classes. Not once did my teacher point to God as a reason for the youth of earth, she merely looked at what scientists have discovered. So one can conclude that a young earth is likely while also being an atheist or agnostic, or whatever religious belief one may have.
Item 2+3: The idea that Catholicism restricted common folk from education is just a blatant lie. As I said previously, the monks were the people who cared for and taught the homeless how to read. It was only when Henry VIII forcefully expelled them from the monasteries that they were unable to complete this duty. The Church has only ever supported education. Not only that, but the schools and hospitals that were originally founded in the west are here because of the Catholic nuns and priests who desired to pave the way for the New World.
Item 1+(2+3): It doesn’t make sense for the Prince of Evil to provide us with something that contains objectively Good things. The Bible has a massive number of stories and lessons promoting things such as compassion, forgiveness, sacrifice, patience, etc. Even if the stories in the Bible weren’t true, they still actively undermine everything that Lucifer stands for, like hatred, ruthlessness, selfishness, impatience, etc.

We'd get along, you and I.
You provide solid answers that I agree with.
I'm just going to open up for more discussion.

My issue is with places like. "Creationist Museum." If you haven't watch the Documentary "Bill-Nye" I'd suggest you watch it. The garbage that creationism is putting into the heads of our children is going to rob our society of critical analysis and thought.

There's also the whole debate over our origins which to me, isn't -THAT- important. What is important is agreeing on what isn't theory and respecting the space between scientific and religious theory. When people say "Religion should be taught in school." Most people who hear that think "THey want Christianity taught in school." But to do that you I would contend you have to have equal representation of all religions for a child to make their own mind and choice. I also take issue with youth indoctrination. I understand why Christianity contends that saving children is important for their religion.. but... I see that as a recruitment tool that isn't justified for any religion. I trust you wouldn't call science a religion....

As a matter of fact, I agree with you in that I wish religion was not taught in public school(the only exception being general religious history, but that ought to be restricted to history class). Not only do I believe religion is something that should be taught by parents, but I also hate the fact that many religion teachers aren't religious at all. They are only involved in the class because they are paid to do so, not because they are actually passionate about the subject, or even know anything about it. What I desire is that kids are taught Philosophy and critical thinking, as well as how to do research and make their own decisions. Am I correct in thinking you would say the same?

And although I am a creationist, I do think that something as vague as the origin of reality should not be presented as one side or the other, rather the facts of reality should be presented and then the child be permitted to make their own choice on their belief, provided they have the mental capacity to do so. The reason I say "provided they have the mental capacity to do so," is because most kids who I personally know simply aren't intelligent enough to make their own choice on the origin of reality, so why teach them before they have been taught how to think for themselves? That's why I want philosophy to be taught, not religion.

1+(2+3): It doesn’t make sense for the Prince of Evil to provide us with something that contains objectively Good things. The Bible has a massive number of stories and lessons promoting things such as compassion, forgiveness, sacrifice, patience, etc. Even if the stories in the Bible weren’t true, they still actively undermine everything that Lucifer stands for, like hatred, ruthlessness, selfishness, impatience, etc.

To me, it really does.

I'll summarize it in simple terms. Try not to take it as face value.

Teaching someone to live in fear of their creator is not something I imagine a God doing. I would argue that when placed under pressure, when given threats of eternal damnation for failing to uphold a near impossible set of commands. (Do not lie - people do this. Do not judge, do not be jealous, etc) Many of these commandments are against the very nature of mankind. What better way to exploit the suffering of mankind than to attack their very weaknesses? My question which cannot be answered by anyone beyond their subjective religious perspectives, If life is a gift, why would God give us a huge large book? Kinda reminds me of sleezy capitalists/corporate executives who are trying to screw you out of a deal. My answer, if there were to be one, is simple. He wouldn't.
This book is the antithesis (when used to convey religious law) of God's gift. Think about it, we spend an eternity as his children in heaven, only to be brought to the earth to be with our families for only the blink of an eye in an omniscient perspective. No, I'd tell my child to go have fun. Do as you will. Please do unto others.
That's the only rule I would have. "Do unto others."

Reflecting back on our back and fourth I find myself realizing why I was here in this thread in the first place. I'm not here for honorable people such as you seem to be. I am here for the westboro baptist types. The zealotry, the blind "god is my sword" archetype.
The more tolerant a religion is, the more I jive with it. What I do not tolerate, is intolerance. From Athiests, to agnostics, and religious types alike. Those people are not worthy of respect.*

As an aside, I'd just like to note that the Bible says the words(or at least some version of the words) "do not be afraid" something like 350 times. But, as you disagree with my previous message about how fear is not a theme pushed in the Bible, and the fact that it is in human nature to seek the Good (we merely have a warped idea of what is Good), I cannot in good faith pursue an avenue which will eventually lead nowhere.

As for your claims that the Bible tells us to fear ourselves, that is not true. While it does warn us against our own fallibility, nowhere does it ever say to fear ourselves. I personally don’t understand how one is able to take warnings against our imperfections and conclude that it means we ought to fear ourselves. Would you be so kind as to provide reasoning for this fear? Now, the idea that the Bible urges us to squander our lives here on earth is absolutely erroneous. It is only through God that we even have our lives to Live, Love, and be Joyful. God does want us to live in happiness, the only problem is that we ourselves fall astray and cause suffering for ourselves. We do seek the Good naturally, but we just have a misguided idea of what actually is Good.

“The bible talks about the end times coming when all have been exposed to Christianity and have had the chance to deny it. This is impossible. It also sounds like a tool used to drive recruitment to get more tithes.”
How is that not possible? It’s not as though God is in any hurry, he has all of eternity to try to have us accept him. And that theory you keep repeating is bothering me, so now is as good a time as any to refute it, I suppose.
Your claims that the Church leaders merely make up stuff to tax the people makes no logical sense whatsoever. What about all of the people who suffered and died for their faith? Do you think the Early Christians were hatching some master plan to wring wealth out of the people and put it in the palms of…people who hadn’t even been born yet? I’m sorry, but the idea that the millions of Church representatives who died merely died to keep money in the Church and not because they believed in its teachings is ludicrous. The Church would not have survived this long if it only existed for lucrative purposes. I personally serve at my local parish, and believe me, nobody is making any money off of it. The same goes for bishops, and cardinals, and even the pope. Even though it may look as though they are just flowing in wealth, that is not the case. They are called to live lives of poverty, and once they put aside their ceremonial garments, it’s essentially a life of sacrifice. That’s not to say that all of them followed this rule, but even then, they did not receive funds for themselves from the people. Any wealthy Church leader would have either stolen the money or been bribed by an external source. And even though this may have happened frequently, it cannot be used as evidence to deny that the Church is good. Again, I must stress that just because there are a few bad apples doesn’t mean the whole bunch is bad.

How is that not possible?
>> Language barriers, religious and political barriers. People are born every day, being able to understand every day. Kinda problematic.

It’s not as though God is in any hurry, he has all of eternity to try to have us accept him. And that theory you keep repeating is bothering me, so now is as good a time as any to refute it, I suppose.
Your claims that the Church leaders merely make up stuff to tax the people makes no logical sense whatsoever. What about all of the people who suffered and died for their faith?
>> What do you mean, exactly? Giving life instead of money? What about it?

Do you think the Early Christians were hatching some master plan to wring wealth out of the people and put it in the palms of…people who hadn’t even been born yet?
>> You're missing the message/idea. If you are say, a pope, or some leader of an entire organization, and your power is that above the king. You are heralded as the line to God. What you say goes. You'll find examples in this site.
https://historycollection.com/18-alteration-made-to-the-bible-and-its-consequences/

I’m sorry, but the idea that the millions of Church representatives who died merely died to keep money in the Church and not because they believed in its teachings is ludicrous.
>> Agree to disagree; only monks were given the authority to transcribe the bible. Those monks had to take assignments and worked together on writing it. Who wrote the prompts?
The Church would not have survived this long if it only existed for lucrative purposes. I personally serve at my local parish, and believe me, nobody is making any money off of it. The same goes for bishops, and cardinals, and even the pope. Even though it may look as though they are just flowing in wealth, that is not the case. They are called to live lives of poverty, and once they put aside their ceremonial garments, it’s essentially a life of sacrifice.
>> I see you're starting to take this personally. this isn't personal. I am speaking on the more common hypocritic CHristian.
Again, I must stress that just because there are a few bad apples doesn’t mean the whole bunch is bad.
>> Agreed, what we need to do is have a Christian Revolution where you guys start drawing lines for each other. Because some Christians *Are* destroying your reputation. With atheism, that's harder as it's not a religious structure or organization.

Ah, I misunderstood your question, and how I ought to answer it. As I do not have much experience in eschatology, I will merely remain silent on that topic, as I would only make things more confusing for both of us.

I mean the early Christians for the most part died as martyrs, or at least in danger of death at any moment. They didn't think they would get rich or powerful off of being Christians, and this has held true for centuries. Even the Church leaders, while they may have had power, many ultimately suffered for their faith, or at least lived in danger at every moment. I don't see why you have a problem with an organization having control over a country. After all, any government is founded on the basis of some type of religion, even though most are objectively flawed ones. Just because the Church had militaristic as well as cultural power doesn't necessarily make it bad.
And as for the monks being the only people to transcribe the Bible, well, who else was going do it? They were the biggest and most organized group of scholars of the time. And the people who supervised were also devout Christians as well, like abbots and bishops. What I think you are doing with your evaluation is taking the fact that there were many evil church leaders and generalizing from there, albeit unintentionally. I can't blame you, it's a natural part of one's consciousness.
I don't feel personally attacked, I just wanted you to know that Church leaders are in general not benefitting in the worldly sense from their positions. You don't have to believe me if you don't want to, but it would be appreciated if you at least entertained the idea for the sake of our discussion.

Wow, I didn't think my reply would be that long, lol. Sorry for the slough of messages, I guess I got a little carried away. And I also forgot how imgflip prioritizes replies, so the order of the comments is backwards. Anyways, if you have anything more to add, please let me know. I may not have time to reply right away, but I will do my best to get back to you.

I think we simply can nod at each other in recognizing that we are two sides of the same coin:

We want people to pursue better relationships with their chosen deity.

We disagree on each other's views but do not seek to change the mind of the second party.

As much as I disagree with Christianity for the things I've discussed, there are things I could still go back to and insist in inconsistencies, but as I said. I don't need to with you. I'm not here to push my worldview onto you. Wow, that train of thought changed mid-sentence.

Oh yea, I remember. As much as I dislike Christianity for personal reasons, I do wish that more of the conservative/religious right were like you. The other unresolved issue I have is religion trying to push its world view into politics. We don't need to get into that as I am sure we understand each other's stance on that.

You are right, Catholics need to be open to progress. It is in human nature to change and grow: if we do not do so we would not be fulfilling our duty. As a matter of fact, in the past it was the monks in the monasteries who were essentially the scientists of the day. Their work was brought to a halt and ruined by Henry VIII and his persecution of Christians. They were also the ones who cared for the homeless and taught the common folk how to read and write. When the Tyrant appropriated the monasteries to give to his vassals, all of that vanished. (I have no secular sources to back up that claim other than my history teacher’s lecture, so if you don't want to believe that, I can't make you.)

1. I don't think you understand just how equal women and men are in Christianity. We fully believe that women, while they have different roles than men, are fully equal to them. Just because women aren't able to be priests doesn't mean they aren't important. Both men and women have roles of their own, that cannot be fulfilled by the other. So yes, I was referring to both men and women.
2. Just because lepers were told to set themselves apart from others doesn't mean that we must isolate the healthy. And the same thing goes for the elderly. In my personal experience in the nursing homes, most would rather die from the virus than continue being separated from the people they love. Mental health is every bit as equal as physical health. They are essentially being tortured through neglect and separation until they die a miserable death. I personally would rather die sooner of a disease while living a joyful life than live to old age in agony. Please don’t quote Scripture when trying to force us to blindly accept laws instituted by the government: it is an insult to our intelligence and bodily autonomy.

3,4,6. While it is true that Christians often foist explanation of Old Testament Laws onto the backs of Jews, I can understand why; as a matter of fact, I was just going to do the same until a friend of mine gave me some advice (so credits to him for this answer). I don’t have time to edit his answer properly into a fluid statement conjoined with my own, so I will merely quote him.
“Firstly, this person states as the third point in their second message the following: ‘From your points, I've noticed a trend in which I take issue. Passing the buck for issues surrounding the old testament, you pass the buck onto Jews or say that it is merely 'Old testament' that is no longer valid.’
“They do have a point here - this is indeed a place where most Christians fall short in explaining why they don't still follow Jewish tradition and the plethora of laws from Leviticus and etc. Even Christ did say "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matthew 5:17). For this it may help to cite this article from Catholic.com (Catholic Answers) which states: "[Many of the laws of the Old Testament are] not binding on Christians. It never has been. In fact, it was only ever binding on those to whom it was delivered—the Jews (Israelites). That said, some of that law contains elements of a law that is binding on all people of every place and time." This argument is given by a Catholic theologian, here's the link so you can properly cite it: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/why-we-are-not-bound-by-everything-in-the-old-law.
“Here is Fr. Sheoenstene of the Diocese of Lansing, also describing the issue: ‘The Torah, or law in Hebrew, was put in place to keep the community holy and to distinguish it from all other people. It also pointed toward and prepared for the ushering in of the new creation promised by God through the prophets. For Christians, Jesus is this long anticipated new creation. In other words, the law, or Torah, was consummated in Christ. The law has not passed away, but has been fulfilled.’ Here is the link for these arguments too: https://faithmag.com/why-dont-we-have-follow-all-laws-old-testament.”

Again, not my wording, but I find this to be the most lucid and simplified way to put it.

“Yet, there are plenty of examples where there is material cherry picked from the old testament and put into modern Christian practice.” Would you provide examples of this?

A lot to unpack here, and to reply to each point I'd need multiple posts for just this one. So I'll be brief and succinct to avoid that from happening. (Sucks that important communication is lost)

I read your citation on Jesus' lecture "Blessed be." I did know of this.

“Yet, there are plenty of examples where there is material cherry picked from the old testament and put into modern Christian practice.” Would you provide examples of this?

Look upon the Christian view of homosexuality. The OT states refers to when a man lies with a man that this is an abomination. Granted, the NT talks about it as well in Romans, Corinth, Matthew, etc. But the same language is used in reference to "Man and Man" or citing the act as effeminate. Implying that homosexuality makes one weak. This is true in the letter to Corinthians through the use of the word Malakia. Also, Arsenokoitai which means male-bed. It does not cite the female at all. At best, you could argue that they make declare an all-inclusive noun. But it begs the question why the male was directly targeted and not the female.

Regardless of the verbiage, Jesus says "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." and to "love thy neighbor." LGBTQ are people. Their persecution stems from religious history. Today, Religion is still used to keep them out of the public eye even though they are God's children. ( By the bible's standards. )

Let's not forget how interpretations of the bible in the last 1800 years have been subjective, and the laws change over time as well as the translations of the text. (I'm rambling) How can we be certain that this is even the correct text? How can we even be sure its genuine? How is Paul... nvm. Unrelated.

Again, the some laws in the Old Testament are binding across all peoples, in all ages. Not all, but some. The reason homosexual acts are sinful is that they take something beautiful and fruitful, and completely warps it. I don't think you, or anybody with a iota of wisdom for that matter, would disagree with the fact that man and women are quite literally designed for each other. They bear fruit, and bring pleasure to one another to encourage procreation. Now, men's bodies are clearly not designed for one another. The only thing gained through homosexual acts is pleasure. Now, I can't exactly blame gay people for submitting to their desires, but I also can't praise them either. They are taking something fruitful and Good, and making it merely an object of pleasure, which is not its primary purpose.

(Important=>)I'm not asking you to agree with me in that this is evil, as I did oversimplify it, I just want you to understand why Catholics believe certain laws hold true for every people and age(<=Important).

And as for only men being mentioned, women don't need to be included, because the laws hold true for both men and women. Another reason why Christianity isn't some backwards, misogynistic group of old men. We, to quote the legendary Satou Kazuma, are true advocates for gender equality.
I agree, lgbt people should be treated with respect, and not be persecuted. I don't think any Christian who upholds the beliefs of the church would say otherwise.

I'm not even gonna reply to that, as it seems as though you don't really care for an answer lol

"“They do have a point here - this is indeed a place where most Christians fall short in explaining why they don't still follow Jewish tradition and the plethora of laws from Leviticus and etc. Even Christ did say "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matthew 5:17). For this it may help to cite this article from Catholic.com (Catholic Answers) which states: "[Many of the laws of the Old Testament are] not binding on Christians. It never has been. In fact, it was only ever binding on those to whom it was delivered—the Jews (Israelites). That said, some of that law contains elements of a law that is binding on all people of every place and time." This argument is given by a Catholic theologian, here's the link so you can properly cite it: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/why-we-are-not-bound-by-everything-in-the-old-law."

To reiterate, if every Christian were to get this, it'd be fantastic...

What I really can't stand is how people fight over GOD as a mascot for their political team. People ask god. For their team. Whatever it is. While his commentary is satirical, it raises valid consideration. George Carlin's "Religion is bullshit." He goes into freewill, prayer, worship, etc... and he asks practical questions. If you can stomach the humor of an ex-catholic, I think you'd enjoy it if you haven't seen it already. 10 minutes.

Yes, even though I disagree fundamentally with his view of reality, it is well-written comedy.

Most rules in the old testement were I guess you could call removed my Jesus, so the majority of rules in the old testament don't apply. No offense to you, but I'm getting tired of people who aren't Christian using things like that against Christains. Please be peacefull with your next response. (No homosexuals shouldn't be put to death, but it is said it is said that it's not allowed, but if you stop and repent, you're alright

I have only been peaceful. So is it your position that lesbians are an affront to Christianity as equally as gays are?

You're also talking to a Christian. I just separated myself from the Bible as a literal text and focused only in what Jesus said.

On another note, what variety of Christian is that?

As a Catholic, which is notoriously no longer a Bible-centric faith, I also find that the Bible comes after the word of God and Christ himself.
The Bible is a mish-mash of anecdotes and stories, not meant for a literal understanding (Enter the creation of the world in seven days- If that was so, what defined a day prior to the third day? It must be a metaphorical statement regarding his capability for swift and solid creation- And for this reason primarily I find average New World Creationism to be flawed beyond belief).
Science and faith go hand-in-hand for the person who wants to understand Darwin didn't say we are monkeys.

I don't have a name for it. Closest thing that I could think of is Gnosticism or Buddhism for the sake of comparison.

1. No
2. I've only read teh bible 1ce, so-
3. Having a strong body that cant get hurt easily bcuz theyll b on their knees a lot
4. Nah
5. Im agnostic though
6. no
7. no

The questions weren't for you....

Cringe

Then why so hostile buddeh?

Do you realize how much you just owned yourself just now? They aren't Roman "myths" they're facts. We have primary source texts where this information has been recorded. Who do you was the greatest catalyst for Christianity? The Roman Empire. Christianity was persecuted and a small following until Romans made it their Empire's religion.

And you wonder why people have issues with you? Your religion is known for its relentless persecution against anyone not in your belief. You guys took "My way or the highway" and slapped a book on it that's been written by men who were able to make the church rule over the king of the land. And you don't for a second think that your bible's been corrupted by your so-called "great deceiver?"

That's not being faithful.
That's being blindly naive.

Again, just want to point at again that you're telling other people how to live their lives by saying that they shouldn't say "Oh my god." Respect the first amendment that you desperately depend on for your religion, fascist.

I totally understand trust issues. I'm not asking you to stop believing in God. I am Gnostic, it is my belief that everyone's relationship with God is personal. I invited you to this conversation by posing you a question in response to what you said. You accepted the question by answering. From that answer, I critically examined your stance and simply asked you to look at your relationship in the same manner before chastising anyone else.

Also, what rumors have I posted? Can you point to them please?

And again, just driving it home that your religion has literally conquered entire peoples and adopted their holidays into your own religion and put a Christian stamp on it. Sure, it sucks to hear that about your own religion. I'd be upset too. That's why I stopped being orthodox Christian and went Gnostic.

I don't care what you say, I'm NOT giving up my religion because GOOGLE says it, and some jerk online says it!

No one is asking you to give up your religion. Where did I ever suggest that? Honestly.

What your saying is:
"That's not being faithful.
That's being blindly naive"
which implies that it isn't real. Which implies that I should stop believing in it. But no, I ain't listening to some random doofus online.

It doesn't imply that at all. That's what you're inferring, but the implication is instead that in reference to what I was saying, the Bible, according to its own text, is liable to corruption as it has been in the possession of man for over two millennia.

Think about it critically. What really is Jesus' message? What values do you share? How do you reconcile them with one another. Let's take a look at what I said, I was trying to show you something that is inconsistent with your own belief.

You said that you believe in the ten commandments, correct? Fine! That's great. I applaud your decision. The Ten Commandments can be found in the old testament. So let's look at the Old Testament for some other scriptures to be taken just as literally.... To which, I said this:

"1) Should all homosexuals be put to death?
2) Does the bible talk about masking and social distancing? (That's an easy one, you can google that.)
3) Selling your daughter into slavery is sanctioned in exodus 21:7, what would are some good qualities one looks for in a daughter for slavery...? I can only imagine.
4) Anyone who is caught working on Saturday, per Exodus 35:2, should be put to death. You would agree with that, I imagine.
5) Let's also talk about all the Christian football players in the 20th century who used pig skin for footballs. Leviticus 11:7 talks how touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean.
6) Should we start stoning people for planting different crops side, by side?
7) Do we have to start burning people for wearing a garment that is made from two different threads? (Polyester & cotton)"

All of these can be found in the old testament. Do you hold them with equal value of the ten commandments? If not, you're cherry-picking your bible and I'd like to discuss your thoughts on that to help you refocus your thoughts on what -YOU- value in christianity and show you where to look so that you can be -MORE SECURE- in your religion.

I'm not here to mess with you. I'm here to help you and endorse your choice. Can't you see that?

he is not trying to get you to give up your religion, he is trying to get you to stop being so toxic about your religion.

Lots of people call me toxic. Do I care?
N
O
So you can shut up, cuz I dont care

You spelled no wrong

Jesus would.

I'm not Jesus.

I'm afraid I agree with your sentiment, but not with your reasoning nor denial of history, in addition to your disrespect of an opposing view. History is an important part of Christianity. We wouldn't know if the Bible is true or not if we didn't have historical evidence to back up claims it makes. To just believe the Ten Commandments are Good without accepting the history behind the Bible is tantamount to making your own laws. Quite frankly, you will need to think more with your head than with your heart if you want to confront people about complex topics, no matter how much it hurts to stay silent. (sorry if that seemed harsh, I mean no disrespect)

You genuinely should care about what Nero did.
If you studied what happened back in Rome, you could have told your opponent that Nero never did anything for Christians.
In fact, you would know he set us on fire and used us as torches.

Next time you get in an internet fight, think instead of just screeching out meaningless opinions.

chills with the caps lock. also, this is a meme website, not a religious debate club, you probably attacked enough people already with that comment, so take your comments to another website, try twitter.

Make me. Also, check the streams. Theres about 50 debate streams

yes, but this is the fun stream in case you were unaware. also i doubt all the debate streams are specifically religious debate streams.

i never said there were none, i just said there were very few

Kinda interesting to see a Christian so devout as Ravenclaw implies to be endorsing the thought of AI...

Dude. Imagine believing in a diety created by people you hate. Oh by the way, can I get your opinion on Jewish people?

I like Germans better, they believed in God. However, it's in The Ten Commandments to not kill, so I believe they are actually pretty equal.

hey buddy, I think I understand what you mean, but your reply needs a bit of polishing as it probably sounds better in your head than out loud. To interpret it at face value, it sounds like this: "I think Germans (are you referring to Nazis?) are better than Jews but killed
a lot of them which evens the score." I know this isn't what you meant, but that's just how it will be interpreted using logical English, and I'm afraid that's not exactly the right way to put it.
Also Catholics and Jews believe in the same God, we just worship Him differently.

lol

Nazis believed in God too, do you like them better than Jews?

yes, i do a little bit, but i disagree with how they treated Jews

This is a joke, c'mon man

cringe

Call me what you want,

Bruhhhhhhh

U need to chillll

I don't "chill", I'm a tall building of fire

no i meant this

Uhhhhhh i am religious and whenever I see bs I always call Adonai so that he/she/they/it can react

EXACTLY

-🤓

You don't realize this meme was a joke right? I said this like a million times already in the comments

*do

Satanist here. This should be fun

Calm down bro, just a meme.