patrick.net

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#French_Revolution

"Counterrevolution against the persecution rooted in the anticlerical aspects of the Revolution led to a war in the Vendée region where republicans suppressed the Catholic and royalist uprising in what some call the first modern genocide."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#Mexico_under_Plutarco_El.C3.ADas_Calles

"His anti-Catholic actions included outlawing religious orders, depriving the Church of property rights and depriving the clergy of civil liberties, including their right to trial by jury (in cases involving anti-clerical laws) and the right to vote."

"Calles, however, did not abide by the terms of the truce – in violation of its terms, he had approximately 500 Cristero leaders and 5,000 other Cristeros shot, frequently in their homes in front of their spouses and children."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#People.27s_Socialist_Republic_of_Albania
"By May 1967, religious institutions had been forced to relinquish all 2,169 churches, mosques, cloisters, and shrines in Albania, many of which were converted into cultural centers for young people. As the literary monthly Nendori reported the event, the youth had thus "created the first atheist nation in the world." "

"The clergy were publicly vilified and humiliated, their vestments taken and desecrated. More than 200 clerics of various faiths were imprisoned, others were forced to seek work in either industry or agriculture, and some were executed or starved to death. The cloister of the Franciscan order in Shkodër was set on fire, which resulted in the death of four elderly monks."

"the penal code of 1977 imposed prison sentences of three to ten years for "religious propaganda and the production, distribution, or storage of religious literature." A new decree that in effect targeted Albanians with Muslim and Christian names stipulated that citizens whose names did not conform to "the political, ideological, or moral standards of the state" were to change them. It was also decreed that towns and villages with religious names must be renamed. Hoxha's brutal antireligious campaign succeeded in eradicating formal worship, but some Albanians continued to practice their faith clandestinely, risking severe punishment. Individuals caught with Bibles, icons, or other religious objects faced long prison sentences. Religious weddings were prohibited."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#Czechoslovakia

"Thus, the monasteries had been seized by state security service (StB) during three so called “barbaric nights” in 1950. In total, 3142 people were displaced by force into concentrating monasteries. These were in case of male members of orders virtually turned into prison camps or labor camps secured with guards and strict regime aiming the “political re-education” of monks. The 213 monastery buildings and facilities were confiscated by state and content of many ancient precious libraries that survived even Turko-Tatar attacks in the middle ages was scrapped and used for cardboard production.”

In 1957 ŠtB arrested university students in eastern Slovakia town Košice who held Bible study meetings. The consequent investigations lead to further arrests of Christians and lawsuit in 1959 with non-public hearing and coverage by state-controlled media. ... The arrested members of the Blue Cross were found „guilty“ of „spreading hostile Christian ideology“ that is „contradicting scientific Marxist ideology“."

Well, looks like this is enough, even w/o getting into Soviet, Chinese, or N. Korean persecutions. It's clear that Atheism in nothing but a destructive religious cult that gets extremely cruel when it's able to grab some state power.

Dan8267 says

You must be a great teacher

Sorry if reading your ridiculously long comment wasn't as high a priority as breakfast, getting ready for work, and about 4 other things related to my responsibilities.

Besides,....well nevermind.

I think I said it best here, and it is the next thing I should address if I am going to have anything more to say on this.
marcus says

Why do I respect atheists who are neutral to whether non fundamentalist religions are a good or bad thing for mankind?

and why is it that I can not begin to comprehend or respect the views of an atheist who is certain that there is no god by any definition and feels that arguing this is a courageous and noble thing, and most importantly he or she knows the world would be a better place without even the non-fundamentalist religions and wishes to convert others to his mindset on this?

I'm going to work on answering this, because the nitty gritty arguments about god just aren't interesting to me. I guess I'm stuck in my relatively agnostic position.

I think the human behavior part of it is actually more interesting to me. On both sides. Is it me ? Or am I right in what I think (insert what you call name calling here).

edited slightly for punctuation

One other question though Dan, as I continue to ponder my questions to myself. (They were questions to myself and your gibberish interpretations seem designed only to obfuscate. As did your answers to my other questions. But that's okay.)

What do you think about abortion? More specifically what do you think about those who are extremely militant in their antiabortion position, to the point even of advocating violence against the doctors who perform them ? Just curious.

Please just answer in a concise and to the point way, you know, the actual question that I'm asking.

wthrfrk80 says

The Old Covenant expired with Jesus.

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

This is my favorite Bible quote, and I've never seen a satisfactory explanation why it doesn't mean what it plainly says, much less one that relies only on the synoptic gospels without reference to Paul, who never met Jesus. All to me clearly means the Second Coming. Why bother telling his fellow Kosher, law-obeying Jewish apostles when time was so short and much needed to be said? Clearly if Jesus was the Christ, he meant for Christians to obey the entirety of the Law.

Paul's dropping of the Kosher and other OT laws helped his sect of Early Christians predominate, and Pauline Christianity eventually become Orthodoxy*. Them Greeks and Germans love their pigs and shellfish, and wouldn't convert without 'em.

* Meaning the great broad agreement between Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the vast majority of Protestant sects.

On the other hand, Jesus' words probably weren't his anyway, if he existed and isn't a Lao-Tsu of Western Religion, a hodgepodge of "righteous teachers" and theological ideas personified in one Character. Many Bible Scholars believe both the OT and NT are witness to a "Battle of Scribes". That's why there are so many conflicting Bible verses. There's actual debate going on in the Bible, and everybody is putting their words into the mouth of God or Jesus. Judah vs. Israel (the North versus the South, each one insisting they are God's favored and with the more important prophets and heroes than the other); Judaizers vs Paulites; etc. There may have been one original "Source" Gospel, known as the Q-Gospel, but we don't have it, probably never will, and various sects and ideologues - re-wrote or 'clarified' it into the 4 Gospels we have today (plus many more that are lost or were burned on purpose for defying what became Orthodoxy).

Forgeries and false authorship was so common in the Roman Empire, that there were professionals whose sole job was to establish the authorship of documents and books. Galen himself wrote a book on how to identify his real works from forgeries written in his name - precisely around the time the earliest Gospel fragments we have were believed to have been copied.

The World is a better place for the French Revolution. Whenever revolutionaries sweep out the old regime (whether they do better is another story), the Marseilles is sung.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/ehkFdOzozQ0

michaelsch says

"Counterrevolution against the persecution rooted in the anticlerical aspects of the Revolution led to a war in the Vendée region where republicans suppressed the Catholic and royalist uprising in what some call the first modern genocide."

Yep, many Priests wouldn't take an oath to the country of which they were born. Catholic Churches remained open throughout the Revolution, but of course the Royalists and Aristos made shit up or blew things out of all proportion. The few clerics that were actually strung up or run out were generally either venal SOBs whose greed and lechery were notorious, or powerful Royalist figures.

Many good things came out of the repossession of land from the Church. Taxes were paid to support the necessary functions of the state, like road-building, levees, and law enforcement, far more than when the lands were owned by the mostly tax-free church. And untold acreage was opened up to modern farming methods and the famines of the dark pre-revolutionary days were soon forgotten. Besides, if the Church is spiritual, why do they need property at all? And from whom did the Church get title to the lands from in the first place?

marcus says

your gibberish interpretations seem designed only to obfuscate.

Perhaps you need to work on those reading comprehension skills. My answers are obviously design to clarify, not obfuscate. The clearer and more precisely defined things become, the more obvious that all religions are hoaxes. Remember, you're the one who proposed that god is undefinable. Now that's obfuscation!

marcus says

What do you think about abortion?

I'm certainly not going to address a complex issue with many shades of gray like abortion with a simple pro-choice or pro-life label. After all, I don't see things in black and white. [Yes, that was a reference to your contradicting accusations.]

Actually, I planned on writing one of those "20-page rants" as you call them, or what other teachers call, the minimum length for a paper that seriously addresses an issue. Funny how in high school and college teachers are always demanding that students write more, but on the Internet anything longer than a tweet is considered too hard to read.

Personally, I prefer to write as long as it takes to fully discuss a topic and not one word longer. The length of a paper should be determine simply by the needs of the message it conveys and the evidence to support the message, no more, no less. Artificial length restrictions on either end hamper the ability to convey a message.

Anyway, here's what I will say about abortion in short form, both sides are wrong. If you want more details, you have to wait for my abortion rant. My view on abortion is sufficiently complex and different from the mainstream positions that any one word answer would simply be misinterpreted.

Nevertheless, the issue of abortion, although largely influenced by religion, is something that should be debated solely in secular terms. Religion is not a good basis for making a decision regarding this topic.

marcus says

More specifically what do you think about those who are extremely militant in their antiabortion position, to the point even of advocating violence against the doctors who perform them ? Just curious.

Please just answer in a concise and to the point way, you know, the actual question that I'm asking.

Nothing is clearer, more concise, and to the point than code.

Works for all murder-making decisions including soldiers killing each other in war, cops shooting suspects, etc. Naturally, the EvaluateGoodEvil method returns negative values for evil and positive values for good.

Of course, you have to plug in your own set of values as the algorithm is value agnostic. For my set of values, it is wrong to kill abortion doctors. You'll also need a good predictor component both for evaluation future events and generating alternative actions.

So, did I fall for your trap?

Now that I've played your little game, how about showing me that you have a pair of balls and answer the question you have been dodging?

Dan8267 says

Tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of Islamic men in the Middle East, deeply and religiously believe that it is a moral imperative to honor kill a woman in their family if she has had sex with a man who isn't her husband, even if the woman was raped.

Tell me that you "respect" that belief. It's a deeply held, religious conviction from another culture. Are you saying you would tolerate honor killings out of respect for these men's beliefs?

Yeah, I know it's an uncomfortable question to address, but it does get at the heart of your argument's failings. It's a real-world example, too, and one that has great significance today. Having huge balls, I haven't shrunk away from any of your questions, even the ones that were obviously set up as traps. So answer that one.

Dan8267 says

Yeah, I know it's an uncomfortable question to address

Before your question, I had said:

marcus says

I can understand people taking issue with fundamentalist christians or islamic fundamentalists as being an impediment to progress or worse. Maybe my language was not clear, but I was assuming people would know what I meant.

Maybe you should read my posts and try to understand my point of view, before making arguments that don't apply. This is the main reason your long winded free form verbal diarrhea expression is hard for me to read. You could at least show me the respect of checking your logic and whether the argument applies before wasting my time.

Sure some others who also didn't understand or even read what I said might like it. But is this a conversation with me ?

marcus says

If someone wanted to argue that the world would be better off without religious extremists or without fundamentalists (who take their Bible or Koran literally - when it suits them), I could accept that as a reasonable assertion.

But to me this is far different than asserting that the world would be better off without any religion - and without any belief in god, even if it is possibly true (since eliminating all religion does eliminate the extremists and or fundamentalists- but still unknowable since it eliminates all religion - the belief of 80% of the world(some kind of belief in god)), but still also in my view possibly false.

These quotes were from before you made this argument.

Maybe you can find some word choices to dissect, and get into semantics or in some other way be in your own little personal conversation with everyone except me.

Your logic as far as I can tell: Religion is sometimes evil, therefore end all religion.

Or religion is sometimes evil. Religion involves belief in god. Therefore belief in god is evil.

By similar reasoning you could say, humans are sometimes evil....

It's so weak. I thought you were smarter than that.

It makes for cool sounding rants for everyone else. And I get it. "Too much conflict ...can not compute...does not fit my simplistic model....error...stack overflow..."

leoj707 says

Oh, interesting... well then... no cherry picking then 'eh... you sir are then unique among christians.

Not exactly:

Chris·tian·i·ty noun
\ˌkris-chē-ˈa-nə-tē, ˌkrish-, -ˈcha-nə-, ˌkris-tē-ˈa-\
Definition of CHRISTIANITY
1: the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies
2: conformity to the Christian religion
3: the practice of Christianity

thunderlips11 says

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
This is my favorite Bible quote, and I've never seen a satisfactory explanation why it doesn't mean what it plainly says

Do a little research into basic Christianity and you'll get your answer.

Wow, Marcus has now started arguing with himself. I guess it's easier than addressing the points I brought up.

Thought so.

I added a few words if it was too hard to understand that I was addressing the end of the comment that preceded it. But I understand, this should be about time for you to bow out, in one way or another.

I'm recommending a few thousand words. By then you will have completely forgotten what I said (if you even took them in in the first place). And yes I did address your question, quite well before you even asked it.

Yikes it seems like there are two or three different arguments occuring in this room at the same time. It's getting awfully confusing.

How's that for an Argument Clinic! Patrick, how much money do we owe you for these arguments?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

wthrfrk80 says

Do a little research into basic Christianity and you'll get your answer.

C'mon buddy, I can't put all that shit in my posts from just a google/wiki browse.

One great book about Early Christianities would be "Lost Christianities" by Ehrman, also good is "Forged: Writing in the Name of God." The first is particularly good, because it covers all the Early Christian sects that "lost" to Pauline Christianity.

"Jesus" by Crossan is another great book for understanding 1st Century Judea when Christianity was born, but he is a bit of a very liberal Priest, so that colors his attitude I think

And my favorite of all is "Who Wrote the Gospels" by Randall Helms, which tries to shed some light on the Gospel Authors' backgrounds and how it colored how they wrote. Some of the stuff is pretty cool, like Matthew is correcting Mark, whose command of the OT seems relatively weak. Both were believed to be Jewish Christians. One interesting theory of Helms is that Luke was probably written by a Lucia - that is, a Woman. His argument is pretty interesting, one being it's the only Gospel where the females around Jesus aren't bumbling around and actually "Get" Jesus' teachings quicker than the men do.

In any case, Matt 5:18 is one of those Holy Book verses that get ignored when inconvenient. When they want to burn witches or oppose gays, out it comes, when they want to eat pork, it's like it doesn't exist.

Same thing happens in Islam - the whole protect the fellow "people of the book" stuff is heard when Caliphs want the taxes from conquered peoples or tolls from trading with Europe. When they're at war, it's "Even the rock will say, there is a Jew behind me", and all the House of War quotes will be uttered and the rest forgotten.

thunderlips11 says

C'mon buddy, I can't put all that shit in my posts from just a google/wiki browse.

You asked about the following passage:

thunderlips11 says

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

If you don't want to look into the issue yourself, fine.

Here are some hints:

John the Baptist says "look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world."

The Jewish Passover: celebrates the spreading of lamb's blood on the doorposts to ward off the angel of death

The Jewish sacrificial system: killing a lamb as atonement to take away the sins of the people, thus satisfying the demands of the law.

Jesus himself said, "the reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord."

Jesus said, referring to himself, "the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Thunder,

Using Ehrman, Crossan, and Helms to learn about Christianity is a little like using Ken Ham to learn about geology and evolutionary biology.

wthrfrk80 says

If you don't want to look into the issue yourself, fine.

My point is that the verse couldn't be more explicit. The Law is still in effect, according to Jesus - whether or not Jesus was the Blood Sacrafice who washes away men's sins (at least those who "Believe upon him").

In other words, sin no more, and my death washes away your sins, but keep following the Law.

wthrfrk80 says

Using Ehrman, Crossan, and Helms to learn about Christianity is a little like using Ken Ham to learn about geology and evolutionary biology.

Nonsense. They're all very highly regarded Bible Scholars and Academics.

thunderlips11 says

My point is that the verse couldn't be more explicit. The Law is still in effect, according to Jesus - whether or not Jesus was the Blood Sacrafice who washes away men's sins (at least those who "Believe upon him").
In other words, sin no more, and my death washes away your sins, but keep following the Law.

St. Paul covers this issue ad-nauseum in his epistle to the Romans.

wthrfrk80 says

Chris·tian·i·ty noun
\ˌkris-chē-ˈa-nə-tē, ˌkrish-, -ˈcha-nə-, ˌkris-tē-ˈa-\
Definition of CHRISTIANITY
1: the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies
2: conformity to the Christian religion
3: the practice of Christianity

I am not sure where you got this definition, but could you post a link? I am suspect becasue it uses the word "Christianity" to define "Christianity". Not very good from when defining a word.

Here you go:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/christianity?s=t

Chris·ti·an·i·ty
noun, plural Chris·ti·an·i·ties.
1. the Christian religion, including the Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox churches.
2. Christian beliefs or practices; Christian quality or character: Christianity mixed with pagan elements; the Christianity of Augustine's thought.
3. a particular Christian religious system: She followed fundamentalist Christianity.
4. the state of being a Christian.
5. Christendom.

I do appreciate you citing a definition of the word, and it should be immediately clear that the word "Atheism" is very different from "Christianity".

There is no additional complexity to atheism; the definition is very clear with no additional clarification needed.

To understand what "Christianity" means you also need to define: christian, catholic, protestant, Eastern Orthodox, Christianity of Augustine's thought, pagan, etc. Not so simple. Also, you might note that nowhere in either definition is a strict and literal interpretation required for christianity. Not only that but delving into the additional definitions you will find that many things found under the umbrella of christianity do not require a fundamentalist view of the bible, i.e. a strict and literal interpretation. Also, when listing the beliefs of each demomination that falls under the dictionary definition of christianity you will find that they all cherry-pick.

And speaking of cherry-picking, wthrfrk80 you never answered my questions: Do "real" christians love their families? Can true followers of christ drink a pint of Drano and be OK?

Also see Hebrews 8,9,& 10.

thunderlips11 says

They're all very highly regarded Bible Scholars and Academics.

Among people that want to attack Christianity.

wthrfrk80 says

St. Paul covers this issue ad-nauseum in his epistle to the Romans.

Does he? Can you please cite the verse where the epistles invalidate what thunder is quoting?

There are many hundreds of rules/laws in the bible between the old and new testaments. There is no blanket revocation of all old testament laws however some are altered/updated in the new testament. Some of the "updates" to gods law are also vague.

leoj707 says

Do "real" christians love their families? Can true followers of christ drink a pint of Drano and be OK?

Red herrings. I assume most Christians love their families, but what does that have to do with anything? As for the Drano comment, are you referring to "alternative ending" of Mark that isn't in the oldest manuscripts?

You're not listening, just trying to change the discussion.

I'm through debating this.

leoj707 says

Does he? Can you please cite the verse where the epistles invalidate what thunder is quoting?

That would be the book of Romans. Read it. I'm not going to post the entire book of Romans on here. It's in the public domain.

If you don't want to follow Christianity, than don't. I'm really not trying to convert anyone.

wthrfrk80 says

thunderlips11 says

They're all very highly regarded Bible Scholars and Academics.

Among people that want to attack Christianity.

Oh, not at all. Ehrman in particular is a distinguished professor of Religious Studies at one of the best public universities in the country (North Carolina). His work, as far as I know, is universally respected among classicists and academic theologians. If by "learn about Christianity" you mean learn the theological views of various strains, and the historical basis for them he's great. If instead you mean "develop and retain an unshakable Christian faith", then yes you'd be better off with someone else.

wthrfrk80 says

St. Paul covers this issue ad-nauseum in his epistle to the Romans.

(5:18) "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
is followed by...
(5:19) "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."

Makes no sense for Jesus to tell his Jewish Kosher-keeping, Law-Abiding apostles these things, especially if it was just for the short time he was with them, but not mean it for everybody else going forward.

I don't believe the verses here are incompatible with forgiving man's sins via the Crucifixion, it just says those who don't follow the law will be "least in the Kingdom of Heaven".

One could read these passages to find no contradiction, because you could read it as that Men are still saved whether they follow the Law or not - but Jesus wants you to follow the law, and indeed not break the least of commandments, and you'll be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven if you don't follow them.

This is yet another Bible conundrum that shows that the Bible (BOTH OT and NT) were written/edited/revised by competing factions and men pushing a particular line.

Again, there was a battle between the Judaizers and "Proto-Orthodoxy". The Proto-Orthodoxy won, probably by having a larger number of converts attracted by the fact they weren't pushed to obey the Law the Judaizers upheld.

wthrfrk80 says

Read it.

I have and there nothing in there that I find invalidates thunders quote.

The bible is full of contradictions, why do you take an apostles "word" of that directly from Jesus?

That sir is cherry-picking.

leoj707 says

I have and there nothing in there that I find invalidates thunders quote.

Which proves you haven't actually tried to understand the book of Romans.

It's clear to me that neither leo or thunder care to actually understand Christianity. So I'm not going to continue the discussion.

wthrfrk80 says

Red herrings.

Oh, so when does a strict and literal interpretation become a red herring? Hmmm... my guess would be only when one is cherry-picking.

Luke 14:26 Jesus says to be a true disciple of his you need to hate your family.

So, according your assertion that those believing in a strict and literal interpretation are "better" christians then christians that love their families are not being "good" christians.

wthrfrk80 says

As for the Drano comment, are you referring to "alternative ending" of Mark that isn't in the oldest manuscripts?

Oh, so now it is an "alternative ending", how did you put it...? ah yes....
wthrfrk80 says

Well, how convenient.

If you are going to cherry-pick then fine, but don't pretend that your interpretations are somehow better or more valid than others. You just like them are choosing what to believe and what not to believe in the bible. You will dig and dig until you find a "reason" why something you do not like is not really valid, and should not be take literally.

wthrfrk80 says

I'm through debating this.

Of course you are.

wthrfrk80 says

Which proves you haven't actually tried to understand the book of Romans.

No, that only proves that you have not tired to truly follow jesus's teachings in a literal and strict way. You have sought excuses as to why you don't need to follow the new covenant that began with jesus.

wthrfrk80 says

It's clear to me that neither leo or thunder care to actually understand Christianity.

Oh, because we don't agree with your interpretation that means we just don't understand christianity?

Yours is just one in a million different interpretations of christianity and you have not presented a good reason why yours is any better than the other 999,999 interpretations.

wthrfrk80 says

So I'm not going to continue the discussion.

Well, I do appreciate your genuine attempts at communicating your beliefs.

marcus says

But I understand, this should be about time for you to bow out, in one way or another.

Bow out? WTF you talking about, Willis? I made a dozen points, all of which you completely ignored. Meanwhile, I have addressed every single point you made in exquisite detail. Sorry honey, but you've already dropped your entire case and conceded all of my points through silence.

I feel no need to repeat all those points as people can simply Page Up.

wthrfrk80 says

Yikes it seems like there are two or three different arguments occuring in this room at the same time. It's getting awfully confusing.

Yes, the thread has split in two. However, the leoj707/wthrfrk80 argument is clearly distinguishable from the Dan8267/marcus both in content and the participants.

I haven't followed the first argument thread since it's going off into very specific Christian stuff, which isn't of much interest to someone who's advocating that all religions, not just one specific one, are false and destructive.

Dan8267 says

However, the leoj707/wthrfrk80 argument is clearly distinguishable

Yeah, and I think that that argument thread has come to a close.

leoj707 says

Yeah, and I think that that argument thread has come to a close.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/VxEkwUMyDUc

'Nuff said.

wthrfrk80 says

It's clear to me that neither leo or thunder care to actually understand Christianity. So I'm not going to continue the discussion.

Wthrfrk, I don't think this is fair, but maybe I'm not being articulate enough.

By offering my opinion on why and how these verses are disregarded, I don't believe I show a lack of understanding Christianity, just the opposite.

The Bible can and has been used to support many different theologies. Most of these theologies can be advanced with Bible Verses, and have answers as to why competing theologies' bible quotes are inadequate or misapplied.

Calvinists can back up their predestination with Bible Verses:
"Many are called, but few are Chosen" for one, and there are many others (including many that seem to be stretching). So can Non-trinitarians. So can Faith/Grace proponents, and their opponents who believe works can lead to salvation have theirs as well - and all points in between.

leoj707 says

Luke 14:26 Jesus says to be a true disciple of his you need to hate your family.

In an early, cult-like religion, this is a useful quote, since many who join a small outlandish cult will be ostracized by their family. It gives the converted comfort. Now that Christianity is the dominant religion, and has to deal with a situation where most adherents have family members of their own and are not members of a small cult, this verse is "Depreciated", and indeed, almost all the big Christian groups now advocate "Family Values".

Same kind of situation with the Judaizers. To get big with pork eaters, Christianity had to dump the Kosher.

Most Christians today dismiss Jesus' exposition about following the Law. Their justification for doing so is the result of what I believ to have been a long slog between competing theologies. I believe they dismiss it because people not of Jewish Culture would have rejected having to obey the Laws and preferred to join Churches that preached following the Law was entirely unnecessary.

leoj707 says

wthrfrk80 says

It's clear to me that neither leo or thunder care to actually understand Christianity.

Oh, because we don't agree with your interpretation that means we just don't understand christianity?

Yours is just one in a million different interpretations of christianity and you have not presented a good reason why yours is any better than the other 999,999 interpretations.

By "understand Christianity" he means "become a Christian". If you believe that Christianity is true, ipso facto anything you think is an issue must be a misunderstanding.

bdrasin says

By "understand Christianity" he means "become a Christian". If you believe that Christianity is true, ipso facto anything you think is an issue must be a misunderstanding.

Not true.

It's possible to understand Islam w/o beoming a Muslim.
It's possible to undertand atheism w/o becoming one.

I've actually gone on the record as saying Christianity has been shown to be false by genetics: there was no Adam and Eve first couple.

I wasn't trying to convert anyone to anything.