Religion and Ethics - The topic of this USMB Discussion is an "oxymoron"

[Boss]

Just because Christianity today is in a kind of stable state compared to Islam and Judaism, does not change what it took to get them there, or erase history. Nothing has changed in Christian religion today, from what Christians thought during the Crusades and Inquisition.

Other than The Reformation?

The difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity was moderated by the message and teachings of Jesus Christ and has undergone several other reforms including the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s. So you are just flat out WRONG that nothing has changed.

So all the Christian people that killed Muslims and Jews during the Crusades are saved and living in Heaven, or not?

I honestly don't know what became of those people's souls or spirits. Their body died and decomposed many years ago. I'm not a religious person, I am not here to defend Christianity, just to set a punk straight on the lies he's spewing. You stated that Christianity is in a "kind of stable state" and that nothing much has changed with how modern and ancient Christians think. The FACT is, nothing is further from the truth. Much has changed about the religion through the ages. You want to ignorantly dismiss the Protestant Reformation and other major events in Christianity because that's how you support your stupid and backward narrative. When you're called out, you want to wiggle around and make some other inane argument and continue spewing your idiocy.

 

[Boss]

Dude, you believe in "reformation", which is basically a religion that forgives itself for its past transgressions. You like to "protest", but when it comes right down to it, you are Christian, and will follow what your leader tells you to do.

You just want a safe haven, a shortcut to Heaven. You don't want to deal with the real stuff that took place to get your Christian religion recognized in the first place.

Protestants do not have morals or ethics. So they are equally a religion as the one that they are trying to separate from. Ask our Presidents.

No, you're wrong AGAIN bozo. I don't believe in Christianity. I am not a Christian. I am a Spiritualist who believes in a Spiritual God. My God supersedes religion and has no use for man-made attributes.

That said, I have studied religions and I am quite smart on the subject. I don't have a problem arguing on behalf of Christianity when someone wants to openly trash it with gross inaccuracies such as yourself.

 

[RWS]

Protestant Reformation is nothing but saying you're Christian but you want to deny the bad things... You recognize that they were done by bad people, yet you still follow everything else, and you don't want to get blamed for the bad shit that happened.

It's Political Correctness, in it's initial stages. And cowardice.

You still follow all the bad things that created your religion and that it stands for. You just to refuse to admit your role in it.

 

[RWS]

Dude, you believe in "reformation", which is basically a religion that forgives itself for its past transgressions. You like to "protest", but when it comes right down to it, you are Christian, and will follow what your leader tells you to do.

You just want a safe haven, a shortcut to Heaven. You don't want to deal with the real stuff that took place to get your Christian religion recognized in the first place.

Protestants do not have morals or ethics. So they are equally a religion as the one that they are trying to separate from. Ask our Presidents.

No, you're wrong AGAIN bozo. I don't believe in Christianity. I am not a Christian. I am a Spiritualist who believes in a Spiritual God. My God supersedes religion and has no use for man-made attributes.

That said, I have studied religions and I am quite smart on the subject. I don't have a problem arguing on behalf of Christianity when someone wants to openly trash it with gross inaccuracies such as yourself.

Well thanks for this sudden proclamation!!!! Your God supersedes religion?!? And has no use for man? You know the ultimate God?!?

Wow?!?

Dude, what are you doing on a thread arguing that religions and morals have no place together?

Stop being a dick and trying to make stupid arguments that you won't back up and don't really believe in. You must be related to the other dickwad...

And you said I was trolling?!?

 

[Boss]

Protestant Reformation is nothing but saying you're Christian but you want to deny the bad things... You recognize that they were done by bad people, yet you still follow everything else, and you don't want to get blamed for the bad shit that happened.

It's Political Correctness, in it's initial stages. And cowardice.

You still follow all the bad things that created your religion and that it stands for. You just to refuse to admit your role in it.

No, again... that's NOT what the Protestant Reformation was.

Again, it's not MY religion. The Crusades didn't create the religion. The bad people who did bad things didn't create the religion. These are just more shit balls you are throwing because you don't like Christians and you can't think of anything else to do besides hurl your feces.

 

[Boss]

Dude, you believe in "reformation", which is basically a religion that forgives itself for its past transgressions. You like to "protest", but when it comes right down to it, you are Christian, and will follow what your leader tells you to do.

You just want a safe haven, a shortcut to Heaven. You don't want to deal with the real stuff that took place to get your Christian religion recognized in the first place.

Protestants do not have morals or ethics. So they are equally a religion as the one that they are trying to separate from. Ask our Presidents.

No, you're wrong AGAIN bozo. I don't believe in Christianity. I am not a Christian. I am a Spiritualist who believes in a Spiritual God. My God supersedes religion and has no use for man-made attributes.

That said, I have studied religions and I am quite smart on the subject. I don't have a problem arguing on behalf of Christianity when someone wants to openly trash it with gross inaccuracies such as yourself.

Well thanks for this sudden proclamation!!!! Your God supersedes religion?!? And has no use for man? You know the ultimate God?!?

Wow?!?

Dude, what are you doing on a thread arguing that religions and morals have no place together?

Stop being a dick and trying to make stupid arguments that you won't back up and don't really believe in. You must be related to the other dickwad...

And you said I was trolling?!?

I can go on any thread I want to, shitstain. You don't get to tell me to leave because I'm exposing your inaccuracies and idiocy. I've backed up all my arguments, you refuse to answer any questions about yours. For instance, who are these rulers who created religions? Where is this religious doctrine or dogma that preaches the importance of material wealth and power?

Sorry if you think I'm being a dick but honestly, who do you think you're convincing if you can't make your case with a non-Christian who isn't religious?

 

[RWS]

So basically you're saying that you wanted to join a thread to argue, for the sake of argument. You unfortunately chose the beanhead's side to argue for.

And even in the light of truthfulness and logic, you still continue to argue differently for the sake of argument. Even though your argument has nothing to do with the topic.

Do I have this right?

No need to answer, unless you're going to address why your religion has morals and ethics that regular people do not.

If not, then shut the fuck up...

 

[Boss]

Protestant Reformation is nothing but saying you're Christian but you want to deny the bad things... You recognize that they were done by bad people, yet you still follow everything else, and you don't want to get blamed for the bad shit that happened.

No. The Reformation was about reforming the traditions of the Catholic Church which had become very corrupt. It coincides with The Enlightenment as well as the printing press. The papacy wasn't following the gospels, that WAS the point.

I am unsure where you get this notion that people can be blamed for the actions of others who did things long before they existed. It seems like this would be such a simple thing to understand but we see it all the time from certain idiots who think this should be the way things are. I'm not responsible for what happened before I was born. Sorry... nothing I can do about it... I don't feel guilty for it... doesn't change my perspective.

 

[Boss]

So basically you're saying that you wanted to join a thread to argue, for the sake of argument. You unfortunately chose the beanhead's side to argue for.

And even in the light of truthfulness and logic, you still continue to argue differently for the sake of argument. Even though your argument has nothing to do with the topic.

Do I have this right?

No need to answer, unless you're going to address why your religion has morals and ethics that regular people do not.

If not, then shut the fuck up...

No, I joined the thread because you made a stupid inaccurate statement in the OP and I wanted to point that out. Since then, you've made even more stupid inaccurate statements and I've pointed those out as well.

A-gain... this doesn't seem to be penetrating your granite-like cranium but I don't have a religion. So I can't tell you about MY religion. I believe in a Spiritual God and if you are curious as to what that means, you can look up Spinoza's God... that's about the closest explanation I can provide.

As for morals and ethics, I believe all human morals and ethics stem from human spiritual connection. I explained all of this in one of my first posts. You never addressed that, you simply ignored it and continued to rant incoherently about your hate of religion.

 

[RWS]

I said that Religion and Ethics are an oxymoron.

I'm very aware of my diction, and I use it wisely.

Instead of the content of the OP, you focused on the title, and made ridicule of it, to attempt to make yourself look smart!

Problem is, you ran into people smarter than you. Yet you kept arguing for no other reason than argument. And your argument has since been disarmed, and you have admitted to defeat and being a troll.

The object of the thread is to show that religious followers do not have ethics/morals.

Your portion of it has been distraction, deception, and narcissism! Thank you, good job!

 

[Boss]

I said that Religion and Ethics are an oxymoron.

I'm very aware of my diction, and I use it wisely.

Instead of the content of the OP, you focused on the title, and made ridicule of it, to attempt to make yourself look smart!

Problem is, you ran into people smarter than you. Yet you kept arguing for no other reason than argument. And your argument has since been disarmed, and you have admitted to defeat and being a troll.

The object of the thread is to show that religious followers do not have ethics/morals.

Your portion of it has been distraction, deception, and narcissism! Thank you, good job!

I'm very aware of my diction, and I use it wisely.

Then you should've realized the conjunction "and" separating two things means it cannot possibly be an oxymoron. An oxymoron is one thing defined by two conflicting descriptions. As I correctly said in my first post, if you want to say "religious ethics" is an oxymoron, that is acceptable... I disagree, but that's a valid statement. Religion AND Ethics is not and oxymoron because it's two distinct things.

Now... You've failed to show religious followers lack morals and ethics. I presented a rather lengthy list of religious people exhibiting morals and ethics and you predictably ignored it and continued to rant. The same with your claims about "natural ethics".

You can't disarm my arguments by calling me names and refusing to address my points. I don't know where you read me admitting defeat or to being a troll. You seem to have a serious problem with conjuring up nonsense in your head and then believing it's reality.

 

[BreezeWood]

Dude, you believe in "reformation", which is basically a religion that forgives itself for its past transgressions. You like to "protest", but when it comes right down to it, you are Christian, and will follow what your leader tells you to do.

You just want a safe haven, a shortcut to Heaven. You don't want to deal with the real stuff that took place to get your Christian religion recognized in the first place.

Protestants do not have morals or ethics. So they are equally a religion as the one that they are trying to separate from. Ask our Presidents.

No, you're wrong AGAIN bozo. I don't believe in Christianity. I am not a Christian. I am a Spiritualist who believes in a Spiritual God. My God supersedes religion and has no use for man-made attributes.

That said, I have studied religions and I am quite smart on the subject. I don't have a problem arguing on behalf of Christianity when someone wants to openly trash it with gross inaccuracies such as yourself.

Well thanks for this sudden proclamation!!!! Your God supersedes religion?!? And has no use for man? You know the ultimate God?!?

Wow?!?

Dude, what are you doing on a thread arguing that religions and morals have no place together?

Stop being a dick and trying to make stupid arguments that you won't back up and don't really believe in. You must be related to the other dickwad...

And you said I was trolling?!?

I can go on any thread I want to, shitstain. You don't get to tell me to leave because I'm exposing your inaccuracies and idiocy. I've backed up all my arguments, you refuse to answer any questions about yours. For instance, who are these rulers who created religions? Where is this religious doctrine or dogma that preaches the importance of material wealth and power?

Sorry if you think I'm being a dick but honestly, who do you think you're convincing if you can't make your case with a non-Christian who isn't religious?

.

For instance, who are these rulers who created religions? Where is this religious doctrine or dogma that preaches the importance of material wealth and power?

"The Christian biblical canons are the books Christians regard as divinely inspired and which constitute a Christian Bible. Which books constituted the Christian biblical canons of both the Old and New Testament was generally established by the 5th century, despite some scholarly disagreements,[1] for the ancient undivided Church (the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, before the East–West Schism). The Catholic canon was reaffirmed by the Catholic Church in the wake of the Protestant Reformation at the Council of Trent (1546), which provided "the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon" by the Roman Catholic Church.[2] The canons of the Church of England and ..."


4th century christianity is a political agenda disguised as a religion - superimposed on the religion and events of the 1st century ...

 

[Boss]

Dude, you believe in "reformation", which is basically a religion that forgives itself for its past transgressions. You like to "protest", but when it comes right down to it, you are Christian, and will follow what your leader tells you to do.

You just want a safe haven, a shortcut to Heaven. You don't want to deal with the real stuff that took place to get your Christian religion recognized in the first place.

Protestants do not have morals or ethics. So they are equally a religion as the one that they are trying to separate from. Ask our Presidents.

No, you're wrong AGAIN bozo. I don't believe in Christianity. I am not a Christian. I am a Spiritualist who believes in a Spiritual God. My God supersedes religion and has no use for man-made attributes.

That said, I have studied religions and I am quite smart on the subject. I don't have a problem arguing on behalf of Christianity when someone wants to openly trash it with gross inaccuracies such as yourself.

Well thanks for this sudden proclamation!!!! Your God supersedes religion?!? And has no use for man? You know the ultimate God?!?

Wow?!?

Dude, what are you doing on a thread arguing that religions and morals have no place together?

Stop being a dick and trying to make stupid arguments that you won't back up and don't really believe in. You must be related to the other dickwad...

And you said I was trolling?!?

I can go on any thread I want to, shitstain. You don't get to tell me to leave because I'm exposing your inaccuracies and idiocy. I've backed up all my arguments, you refuse to answer any questions about yours. For instance, who are these rulers who created religions? Where is this religious doctrine or dogma that preaches the importance of material wealth and power?

Sorry if you think I'm being a dick but honestly, who do you think you're convincing if you can't make your case with a non-Christian who isn't religious?

.

For instance, who are these rulers who created religions? Where is this religious doctrine or dogma that preaches the importance of material wealth and power?

"The Christian biblical canons are the books Christians regard as divinely inspired and which constitute a Christian Bible. Which books constituted the Christian biblical canons of both the Old and New Testament was generally established by the 5th century, despite some scholarly disagreements,[1] for the ancient undivided Church (the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, before the East–West Schism). The Catholic canon was reaffirmed by the Catholic Church in the wake of the Protestant Reformation at the Council of Trent (1546), which provided "the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon" by the Roman Catholic Church.[2] The canons of the Church of England and ..."


4th century christianity is a political agenda disguised as a religion - superimposed on the religion and events of the 1st century ...

Still, you are talking about a misappropriation of a religion. I've already stated that tyrants and kings have often exploited religion for whatever reasons. Their perversions of the religion are not the religion, nor were the religions created as such. You're supposed to be finding me an example of a religion created by a ruler and religious doctrine which promotes material wealth and personal power.

 

[ding]

I couldn't tell who you were directing these to either, so I'll assume they were directed at me, ok?

Dude, you believe in "reformation", which is basically a religion that forgives itself for its past transgressions. You like to "protest", but when it comes right down to it, you are Christian, and will follow what your leader tells you to do.

You just want a safe haven, a shortcut to Heaven. You don't want to deal with the real stuff that took place to get your Christian religion recognized in the first place.

Protestants do not have morals or ethics. So they are equally a religion as the one that they are trying to separate from. Ask our Presidents.

Except that the 1st Amendment did not prevent states from establishing state religions. Of which about half had at the time of ratification. The establishment clause of the 1st amendment prevented the federal government from establishing a national religion which would have interfered with state established religions. Isn't learning fun?

Protestant Reformation is nothing but saying you're Christian but you want to deny the bad things... You recognize that they were done by bad people, yet you still follow everything else, and you don't want to get blamed for the bad shit that happened.

It's Political Correctness, in it's initial stages. And cowardice.

You still follow all the bad things that created your religion and that it stands for. You just to refuse to admit your role in it.

No. That wasn't what the reformation was about. There was a Catholic reformation before there was a protestant reformation. If you want to learn about the protestant reformation, you should first study the catholic reformation. Learning is super swell.

So basically you're saying that you wanted to join a thread to argue, for the sake of argument. You unfortunately chose the beanhead's side to argue for.

And even in the light of truthfulness and logic, you still continue to argue differently for the sake of argument. Even though your argument has nothing to do with the topic.

Do I have this right?

No need to answer, unless you're going to address why your religion has morals and ethics that regular people do not.

If not, then shut the fuck up...

No. You missed it by a mile. It isn't that you don't have morals, it is that your morals are diametrically opposed to what is good and just.

I said that Religion and Ethics are an oxymoron.

I'm very aware of my diction, and I use it wisely.

Instead of the content of the OP, you focused on the title, and made ridicule of it, to attempt to make yourself look smart!

Problem is, you ran into people smarter than you. Yet you kept arguing for no other reason than argument. And your argument has since been disarmed, and you have admitted to defeat and being a troll.

The object of the thread is to show that religious followers do not have ethics/morals.

Your portion of it has been distraction, deception, and narcissism! Thank you, good job!

No offense, but you don't strike me as being that "smart."

 

[BreezeWood]

Dude, you believe in "reformation", which is basically a religion that forgives itself for its past transgressions. You like to "protest", but when it comes right down to it, you are Christian, and will follow what your leader tells you to do.

You just want a safe haven, a shortcut to Heaven. You don't want to deal with the real stuff that took place to get your Christian religion recognized in the first place.

Protestants do not have morals or ethics. So they are equally a religion as the one that they are trying to separate from. Ask our Presidents.

No, you're wrong AGAIN bozo. I don't believe in Christianity. I am not a Christian. I am a Spiritualist who believes in a Spiritual God. My God supersedes religion and has no use for man-made attributes.

That said, I have studied religions and I am quite smart on the subject. I don't have a problem arguing on behalf of Christianity when someone wants to openly trash it with gross inaccuracies such as yourself.

Well thanks for this sudden proclamation!!!! Your God supersedes religion?!? And has no use for man? You know the ultimate God?!?

Wow?!?

Dude, what are you doing on a thread arguing that religions and morals have no place together?

Stop being a dick and trying to make stupid arguments that you won't back up and don't really believe in. You must be related to the other dickwad...

And you said I was trolling?!?

I can go on any thread I want to, shitstain. You don't get to tell me to leave because I'm exposing your inaccuracies and idiocy. I've backed up all my arguments, you refuse to answer any questions about yours. For instance, who are these rulers who created religions? Where is this religious doctrine or dogma that preaches the importance of material wealth and power?

Sorry if you think I'm being a dick but honestly, who do you think you're convincing if you can't make your case with a non-Christian who isn't religious?

.

For instance, who are these rulers who created religions? Where is this religious doctrine or dogma that preaches the importance of material wealth and power?

"The Christian biblical canons are the books Christians regard as divinely inspired and which constitute a Christian Bible. Which books constituted the Christian biblical canons of both the Old and New Testament was generally established by the 5th century, despite some scholarly disagreements,[1] for the ancient undivided Church (the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, before the East–West Schism). The Catholic canon was reaffirmed by the Catholic Church in the wake of the Protestant Reformation at the Council of Trent (1546), which provided "the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon" by the Roman Catholic Church.[2] The canons of the Church of England and ..."


4th century christianity is a political agenda disguised as a religion - superimposed on the religion and events of the 1st century ...

Still, you are talking about a misappropriation of a religion. I've already stated that tyrants and kings have often exploited religion for whatever reasons. Their perversions of the religion are not the religion, nor were the religions created as such. You're supposed to be finding me an example of a religion created by a ruler and religious doctrine which promotes material wealth and personal power.

.

Their perversions of the religion are not the religion, nor were the religions created as such.

I'm not responsible for your lack of comprehension - your only saving grace is the ineptitude in the construction of their 10,000 pg document but not so their intent.

 

[Boss]

No, you're wrong AGAIN bozo. I don't believe in Christianity. I am not a Christian. I am a Spiritualist who believes in a Spiritual God. My God supersedes religion and has no use for man-made attributes.

That said, I have studied religions and I am quite smart on the subject. I don't have a problem arguing on behalf of Christianity when someone wants to openly trash it with gross inaccuracies such as yourself.

Well thanks for this sudden proclamation!!!! Your God supersedes religion?!? And has no use for man? You know the ultimate God?!?

Wow?!?

Dude, what are you doing on a thread arguing that religions and morals have no place together?

Stop being a dick and trying to make stupid arguments that you won't back up and don't really believe in. You must be related to the other dickwad...

And you said I was trolling?!?

I can go on any thread I want to, shitstain. You don't get to tell me to leave because I'm exposing your inaccuracies and idiocy. I've backed up all my arguments, you refuse to answer any questions about yours. For instance, who are these rulers who created religions? Where is this religious doctrine or dogma that preaches the importance of material wealth and power?

Sorry if you think I'm being a dick but honestly, who do you think you're convincing if you can't make your case with a non-Christian who isn't religious?

.

For instance, who are these rulers who created religions? Where is this religious doctrine or dogma that preaches the importance of material wealth and power?

"The Christian biblical canons are the books Christians regard as divinely inspired and which constitute a Christian Bible. Which books constituted the Christian biblical canons of both the Old and New Testament was generally established by the 5th century, despite some scholarly disagreements,[1] for the ancient undivided Church (the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, before the East–West Schism). The Catholic canon was reaffirmed by the Catholic Church in the wake of the Protestant Reformation at the Council of Trent (1546), which provided "the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon" by the Roman Catholic Church.[2] The canons of the Church of England and ..."


4th century christianity is a political agenda disguised as a religion - superimposed on the religion and events of the 1st century ...

Still, you are talking about a misappropriation of a religion. I've already stated that tyrants and kings have often exploited religion for whatever reasons. Their perversions of the religion are not the religion, nor were the religions created as such. You're supposed to be finding me an example of a religion created by a ruler and religious doctrine which promotes material wealth and personal power.

.

Their perversions of the religion are not the religion, nor were the religions created as such.

I'm not responsible for your lack of comprehension - your only saving grace is the ineptitude in the construction of their 10,000 pg document but not so their intent.

My comprehension is fine, it's yours that's having a problem. My saving grace is that I'm not trying to cram a square peg into a round hole like you are. The point has already been acknowledged several times that rulers and tyrants often exploit religion for their own intentions. Inept or not, they misappropriate the text of the gospels in order to justify things the gospels don't intend. You trying to make this point that has already been established is a bit pathetic and obtuse. Trying to turn it into some sort of counter to my point is just plain dishonest.

Now, if you just want to continue being pathetic, obtuse and dishonest, that's fine with me... but my comprehension isn't the problem here.

 

[BreezeWood]

Well thanks for this sudden proclamation!!!! Your God supersedes religion?!? And has no use for man? You know the ultimate God?!?

Wow?!?

Dude, what are you doing on a thread arguing that religions and morals have no place together?

Stop being a dick and trying to make stupid arguments that you won't back up and don't really believe in. You must be related to the other dickwad...

And you said I was trolling?!?

I can go on any thread I want to, shitstain. You don't get to tell me to leave because I'm exposing your inaccuracies and idiocy. I've backed up all my arguments, you refuse to answer any questions about yours. For instance, who are these rulers who created religions? Where is this religious doctrine or dogma that preaches the importance of material wealth and power?

Sorry if you think I'm being a dick but honestly, who do you think you're convincing if you can't make your case with a non-Christian who isn't religious?

.

For instance, who are these rulers who created religions? Where is this religious doctrine or dogma that preaches the importance of material wealth and power?

"The Christian biblical canons are the books Christians regard as divinely inspired and which constitute a Christian Bible. Which books constituted the Christian biblical canons of both the Old and New Testament was generally established by the 5th century, despite some scholarly disagreements,[1] for the ancient undivided Church (the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, before the East–West Schism). The Catholic canon was reaffirmed by the Catholic Church in the wake of the Protestant Reformation at the Council of Trent (1546), which provided "the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon" by the Roman Catholic Church.[2] The canons of the Church of England and ..."


4th century christianity is a political agenda disguised as a religion - superimposed on the religion and events of the 1st century ...

Still, you are talking about a misappropriation of a religion. I've already stated that tyrants and kings have often exploited religion for whatever reasons. Their perversions of the religion are not the religion, nor were the religions created as such. You're supposed to be finding me an example of a religion created by a ruler and religious doctrine which promotes material wealth and personal power.

.

Their perversions of the religion are not the religion, nor were the religions created as such.

I'm not responsible for your lack of comprehension - your only saving grace is the ineptitude in the construction of their 10,000 pg document but not so their intent.

My comprehension is fine, it's yours that's having a problem. My saving grace is that I'm not trying to cram a square peg into a round hole like you are. The point has already been acknowledged several times that rulers and tyrants often exploit religion for their own intentions. Inept or not, they misappropriate the text of the gospels in order to justify things the gospels don't intend. You trying to make this point that has already been established is a bit pathetic and obtuse. Trying to turn it into some sort of counter to my point is just plain dishonest.

Now, if you just want to continue being pathetic, obtuse and dishonest, that's fine with me... but my comprehension isn't the problem here.

.

Now, if you just want to continue being pathetic, obtuse and dishonest, that's fine with me... but my comprehension isn't the problem here.

give it up bossy, what then is 4th century christianity in your opinion their 10,000 pg document ...

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”.

what is "christ" ...

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" (Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ)


there you go - RNC / RCC, just your cup of Tea.

 

[ding]

I can go on any thread I want to, shitstain. You don't get to tell me to leave because I'm exposing your inaccuracies and idiocy. I've backed up all my arguments, you refuse to answer any questions about yours. For instance, who are these rulers who created religions? Where is this religious doctrine or dogma that preaches the importance of material wealth and power?

Sorry if you think I'm being a dick but honestly, who do you think you're convincing if you can't make your case with a non-Christian who isn't religious?

.

For instance, who are these rulers who created religions? Where is this religious doctrine or dogma that preaches the importance of material wealth and power?

"The Christian biblical canons are the books Christians regard as divinely inspired and which constitute a Christian Bible. Which books constituted the Christian biblical canons of both the Old and New Testament was generally established by the 5th century, despite some scholarly disagreements,[1] for the ancient undivided Church (the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, before the East–West Schism). The Catholic canon was reaffirmed by the Catholic Church in the wake of the Protestant Reformation at the Council of Trent (1546), which provided "the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon" by the Roman Catholic Church.[2] The canons of the Church of England and ..."


4th century christianity is a political agenda disguised as a religion - superimposed on the religion and events of the 1st century ...

Still, you are talking about a misappropriation of a religion. I've already stated that tyrants and kings have often exploited religion for whatever reasons. Their perversions of the religion are not the religion, nor were the religions created as such. You're supposed to be finding me an example of a religion created by a ruler and religious doctrine which promotes material wealth and personal power.

.

Their perversions of the religion are not the religion, nor were the religions created as such.

I'm not responsible for your lack of comprehension - your only saving grace is the ineptitude in the construction of their 10,000 pg document but not so their intent.

My comprehension is fine, it's yours that's having a problem. My saving grace is that I'm not trying to cram a square peg into a round hole like you are. The point has already been acknowledged several times that rulers and tyrants often exploit religion for their own intentions. Inept or not, they misappropriate the text of the gospels in order to justify things the gospels don't intend. You trying to make this point that has already been established is a bit pathetic and obtuse. Trying to turn it into some sort of counter to my point is just plain dishonest.

Now, if you just want to continue being pathetic, obtuse and dishonest, that's fine with me... but my comprehension isn't the problem here.

.

Now, if you just want to continue being pathetic, obtuse and dishonest, that's fine with me... but my comprehension isn't the problem here.

give it up bossy, what then is 4th century christianity in your opinion their 10,000 pg document ...

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”.

what is "christ" ...

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" (Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ)


there you go - RNC / RCC, just your cup of Tea.

I don't think you know what that means.

 

[ding]

Religion and Ethics....

You can have one, but not both.

You're either on the side of religions, which advocate very unethical things...

Or you're on the side of ethics and morals, which makes you doubt religions and the evil things they want and do...

It's an oxymoron... Which is why we're pitted here in endless arguments.

But I will tell you right now that ethics is way more important than belief in an imaginary god. And you don't need people to tell you how to follow your ethics or morals either. They are part of you. Anybody trying to tell you they're not, is selling something.

If you still need someone to tell you how to follow your morals in this day and age of knowledge and enlightenment, then you are ripe to be taken advantage of, and part of the problem in this world.

So... getting back to the OP, it appears the OP believes that religion is inherently evil since the OP asserts that religion and ethics are mutually exclusive. The OP goes on to further assert that religion is devoid of ethics. Unfortunately, the OP is biased. By any objective measure religion has been a force for good. In fact, the OP's righteous indignation only exists because of the good that religion has done.

 

[Boss]

give it up bossy, what then is 4th century christianity in your opinion their 10,000 pg document

Did Christianity start out as it was practiced in the 4th century? If not, then shut your pie hole.

MY POINT was that religions are sometimes perverted and exploited by rulers and tyrants but that isn't the FAULT of the RELIGION! All you're doing is trying to make an inane argument that I've already agreed with. I've explained it to you and you still insist on making the inane argument. I don't know what to tell you, 4th century Christianity is not a religion in of itself. What people had turned the religion into 400 years after Jesus and thousands of years after Abraham has NO BEARING on how the religion began. Why can't you get that point through your stubborn bull head?

YOU are the one who needs to "give it up" here, Breezy! Stop trying to make an inane nonsense argument. If you want to counter my original argument, you need to find an example of an original religion that was started by a ruler with the express intent of promoting material wealth and personal power. If you cannot do that, my fucking argument stands. Got it? GOOD!