₦airaland Forum

nobilis:
Hmmm. What exactly are you talking about please?
Are you well at all?
Where in all of this thread have I said that Jesus doesn't exist?

SMH.
You're really pathetic, bro.
From your very first post on this thread, you have not addressed the issue raised. I wonder why you commented in the first place. Maybe you just felt like registering your presence on this thread.

Please, stop quoting me. Ok?
Thanks.

Oh! So Jesus exists!

Good.

babestell:
I wasn't judging yet. Just wanted to understand why people will take a chance like that.

I have colleagues who are AS with their spouses and apparently there is a test you can do to confirmfif the foetus is SS. If the test is positive you may choose to abort the baby. Apparently a lot of people are making use of this option

Some people also use IVF. Both options are sins in Catholic teaching.

I'm not saying much on this issue because I cant find the words.

My ex and I still carry very heavy hearts as a result of this.

Nobody can understand it..except she and I.

Youngsage:
oh... and where was 'advent' mentioned there? or where in the scriptures did they celebrate advent sunday

Advent Sunday is mentioned in the Bible.

You will find it in the verse where the Bible memtions "Bible," "Sunday," and "Private Jet."

Abeg Theultimate, fire on jor...

SalC:
You got mail

Thanks. I've replied.

nobilis:
Na wa oo.
The bible never indicated clearly whether Jesus was married or not.
And you're here claiming that it is all a lie.
So on what if the veracity of your claim based?
And you're even talking about marriage as though it would have been a very evil and despicable thing if Jesus got married.

O jikwa unu, ndi otu Kristi.

Yay! This Atheist has made Jesus cease to exist.

Congratulations!

Kay17:
Italo that is clearly untrue. The State and the Church were not as separated as in our times. The monarch justified his throne with the scriptures, and the scriptures were enforced with the state apparatus. Nonetheless, heresy is wholly a theological topic which was way way beyond the grasp of the common people.

You have to bring practical examples to buttress your point.

What are you saying?

That heresy was not a crime against the state?

ifeness:
Even without proof that you have a king of glory. What a deluded human being.

Wise human being...the above is your wisdom.

justaqad:
are you saying the ancient manuscript was never found?
Are you saying the archealogist lied about the findings?

I'm saying you've never seen the archeologists or the Enuma elish so you just have blind faith in the reporters that told you about it.

Blind faith!

nobilis:
You expect me to answer you yet the questions I asked you earlier you couldn't answer them.
It's really pathetic

Then believe what you like.

Kay17:
Yet heresy is a religious crime. A crime against God, and whatever constitutes heresy would hardly be clear to a largely illiterate population. Except a figure of apt authority such as priest, told them what heresy was and who was committing the masses wouldn't have known. Again, you argued your perspective.

Heresy was a crime against the state.

Many people accused used to be subject to mob justice...many innocent people were killed.

The Church stepped in with the inquisition to give each accused a fair trial.

babestell:
Question for the house

I heard a story of a some friends who are getting married today, however they are both AS. I know the 2 of them as staunch catholics, opus dei members etc and am really shocked that they would go ahead with it. Apparently they are believing that Our Lady will intercede for them, I think it's stupidity.

The girl has an SS sibling who died....and am confused why would she still go ahead or is it that I don't have her level of faith.
I believe God gave doctors the knowledge of SS to help save lives and when we have these knowledge and refuse to work with it, then we are being arrogant

Please what are your thoughts on this

If you have never found yourself in such situation, dont judje just yet.

Kay17:
Italo,

So you admit the Church did execute individuals for heresy, thereby making itself available as a means by the secular authorities, right?

No

Kay17:
The Catholic church punished and imprisoned Galileo, and worse off, apologized for the act. Neither were the Crusades as dignifying as you claim they were. The Muslims were in control of the area for a good while, prior to the Crusades. And yes, the atheist Soviet Union committed atrocities along with Communist China and Albania.

At least you appear a more honest debater.

1. My aim here was not to say that the Church has never done wrong in 2000 years. Of course, it has. It's composed of humans. My aim was to respond to Davien who suggested that religious people kill, unlike Atheists...and religion stiffles what is good and true. That's why I showed him how the Catholic Church built western civilization and how Atheists are the worst mass murderers in history by a distance.

2. If you want to narrow this wide issue to only Galileo and the crusades, then you should tell me what is the aim of doing so. But to answer to your points above:

It could be argued that the Church did Galileo a favour. If Galileo had been subjected to mob justice, as many people in his situation were, he would have ended badly. The Pope apologizing doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong in what they did...just like your father apologizing after reprimanding you with a slap doesn't mean you didn't deserve the slap.

Have you read the Galileo story from an honest source?

What did the Church do wrong?

You know you haven't showed why the crusades were not a good thing.

Boko Haram, ISIS should be allowed to keep the territories they have controlled for a good while, right?

davien:
You merely quoted the involvement of the catholic church to western civilization history,and the bolded you got it from a christian conservative site...so much for "universally known evidence"

...Conservapedia and Wikipedia. You cannot refute a dot of what was said.

davien:
really? the blatant admission of crimes due to questioning church dogma is false?
"Beginning in 1593, Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman
Inquisition on charges including denial of several core Catholic
doctrines (including the Trinity , the divinity of Christ, the virginity of
Mary,and Transubstantiation). Bruno's pantheism was also a matter
of grave concern.The Inquisition found him guilty, and in 1600 he
was burned at the stake in Rome's Campo de' Fiori . "
Italo in what reality is burning someone alive for denying dogma a just deed?

It was just in the eyes of the CIVIL AUTHORITIES that burned him...as it is just in the eyes of the Nigerian Govt to execute an armed robber.

davien:
No,it was an attempt to regain back control of the "holy land" using brute force.

Do you know the difference between inquisition and crusade? You just latch on to anything written by an Atheist on the Internet and regurgitate it without digesting it?

Mr "Copernicus was burned."

davien:
Stealing=heresy? that is a pathetic apologetic....
@bolded,So it wasn't the church that accused bruno of heresy but "secular authorities"? you are contradicting your previous statement.

These are the kind of irrelevant things you have to cling to to save face. Where did I say stealing is heresy...

The Church Inquisition condemned him for heresy. And they were correct. The CIVIL AUTHORITIES burned him. That was the punishment for such crime in the land.

davien:
fair trials?
So did anyone ever record a fair trial?

No need to go far. Bruno got a fair trial.

davien:
You keep masking the churchs actions by claiming it was "secular authorities".
The inquisition was purely non-secular
" The Inquisition was a Roman Catholic tribunal [/b]for discovery
and punishment of heresy, which was marked by the severity
of questioning and punishment and lack of rights afforded to
the accused."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Inquisition.html

Again,
"The Inquisition is a group of institutions within the judicial
system of the [b] Roman Catholic Church whose aim is to combat
heresy . "
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

But the same wikipedia link you provided have these to say:

"Generally, the Inquisition was concerned only with the heretical behaviour of Catholic adherents or converts, and did not concern itself with those outside that religion, such as Jews or Muslims.[7][need quotation to verify]

When a suspect was convicted of unrepentant heresy, the inquisitorial tribunal was required by law to hand the person over to the secular authorities for final sentencing, at which point the penalty would be determined by a magistrate, usually burning at the stake although the penalty varied based on local law."

"King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile established the Spanish Inquisition in 1478."


"The Portuguese Inquisition formally started in Portugal in 1536 at the request of the King of Portugal, João III. Manuel I had asked Pope Leo X for the installation of the Inquisition in 1515, but only after his death (1521) did Pope Paul III acquiesce."

"In the Americas, King Philip II set up three tribunals (each formally titled Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición) in 1569, one in Mexico, Cartagena de Indias (in modern day Colombia) and Peru."

Which one shall we take from you now?

Was it purely secular or did it involve secular authorities, historical illiterate?

davien:
The bolded is a lie,the church itself started the inquisition to weed out heretics.

First you said it was to retake Holy land by force, now it is to weed out heretics.

You keep contradicting yourself only because you're holding on to lies.

Even this anti-Christian website has evidence that the aim was to save souls. Here's a quote from a Papal bull to the Spanish:


"in Aragon, Valencia, Mallorca and Catalonia the Inquisition has for some time been moved not by zeal for the faith and the salvation of souls, but by lust for wealth, and that many true and faithful Christians, on the testimony of enemies, rivals, slaves and other lower and even less proper persons, have without any legitimate proof been thrust into secular prisons, tortured and condemned as relapsed heretics, deprived of their goods and property and handed over to the secular arm to be executed, to the peril of souls, setting a pernicious example, and causing disgust to many."

davien:
Another tongue in cheek lie.

" Initially a tribunal would open at a location and an edict of
grace would be published calling upon those who are
conscious of heresy to confess; after a period of grace, the
tribunal officers could make accusations. Those accused of
heresy were sentenced at an auto de fe , Act of Faith.
Clergyman would sit at the proceedings and would deliver
the punishments. Punishments included confinement to
dungeons, physical abuse and torture. Those who reconciled
with the church were still punished and many had their
property confiscated, as well as were banished from public
life. Those who never confessed were burned at the stake
without strangulation; those who did confess were strangled
first."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Inquisition.html

Most of them were acquitted. I will give you two links to read from seasoned historians on this issue:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/211193/real-inquisition/thomas-f-madden
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revision_of_the_Inquisition

Also, your wikipedia link says only about 2% of accused were executed.

davien:
The church was in complete control...all heretics were tried by the roman church.
You can't revision history here...many jews were tried by the roman church and burned.
" In the beginning, the Inquisition dealt only with Christian
heretics and did not interfere with the affairs of Jews.
However, disputes about Maimonides ’ books (which
addressed the synthesis of Judaism and other cultures)
provided a pretext for harassing Jews and, in 1242, the
Inquisition condemned the Talmud and burned thousands of
volumes. In 1288, the first mass burning of Jews on the stake
took place in France."
Yet another lie...how are trials to weed out heretics and burn them saving lives?
I've already exposed your dubious lies.

Your own link convicts you. It says Secular Authorities were heavily involved and carried out the executions.

Its your ignorance being exposed by your link.

davien:
Which was to burn him?

To find him guilty of heresy...and rightly so.

cool... you went to yahoo and found a catholic that dismissed the church's bloody history.
And to end it you arrived at your initial assertion of there being an "atheist religion" and "atheist civil authorities" that killed tens of millions.
So in total you gave a series of lies and then misrepresented atheism to keep your belief n a magic man [/quote]Not just that Catholic on yahoo. Your own Wikipedia link disproves you. Seasoned historians disprove you.

You want to claim that the Soviet Leaders were not Atheists...and they didnt kill tens of millions?

Wikipedia disproves you.

History disproves you.

davien:
copy-pasted conservative propaganda.



Sure,mask explaining yourself by claiming I commited an ad hominem.
After copying and pasting anti-atheist claims from a christian conservative site,you then tell me to prove you wrong when they aren't right to begin with?

As Lenin himself stated the combating of religion was to
advance the class struggle, the very basis of Marxism – not because or in the name of atheism.
It was because of their belief in the class struggle, or Dialectical materialism.
Even Lenin said the following [b]
“The combating of
religion cannot be
confined to abstract
ideological preaching…
eliminating the social
roots of religion.
“Religion must be
declared a private affair.
In these words socialists
usually express their
attitude towards religion.
But the meaning of these
words should be
accurately defined to
prevent any
misunderstanding. We
demand that religion be
held a private affair so
far as the state is
concerned.
But by no means can we
consider religion a
private affair so far as
our Party is concerned.
Religion must be of no
concern to the state, and
religious societies must
have no connection with
governmental authority.
Everyone must be
absolutely free to profess
any religion he pleases,
or no religion whatever,
i.e., to be an atheist,
which every socialist is,
as a rule. Discrimination
among citizens on
account of their religious
convictions is wholly
intolerable. Even the bare
mention of a citizen’s
religion in official
documents should
unquestionably be
eliminated. No subsidies
should be granted to the
established church nor
state allowances made to
ecclesiastical and
religious societies. These
should become absolutely
free associations of like-
minded citizens,
associations independent
of the state. Only the
complete fulfillment of
these demands can put an
end to the shameful and
accursed past when the
church lived in feudal
dependence on the state,
and Russian citizens lived
in feudal dependence on
the established church,
when medieval,
inquisitorial laws (to this
day remaining in our
criminal codes and on
our statute-books) were
in existence and were
applied, persecuting men
for their belief or
disbelief, violating men’s
consciences, and linking
cozy government.” (Lenin
– Socialism and Religion,
1905)
[/b]


Some religious denominations were even allowed, like Islam, which ‘experienced official co-option from agencies such as spiritual
administration of the muslims.’
At one point, ‘the russian orthodox church was enlisted to support stalin’s government in the country’s defense – support which it unreservedlgranted by naming stalin as divinely appointed, just as it had done under the Russian tsars.’ Now is that atheism?
Italo.... If it were truly atheism that drove their actions, why is it that you’ve been unable to find any quotes to back up your claim?
All the quotes you’ve given italo have been taken out of context as I’ve shown in these few examples. Further more, if it was this “atheism” that drove their actions then why the huge discrepancies between the communists’ beliefs regarding the status of religion in a socialist society? Even Lenin expressed ideas of religious tolerance.
Why was this? As I’ve stated before, it was because of their ideology and their attempts to get the masses to accept it.
You can quote conservapedia all day long,its not going to give you any credibility,just christian conservative propaganda..
After going to conservapedia to lift more conservative propaganda you then ask me to prove you wrong you weren't even right in the first place....

You mean Karl Marx did not say: “Religion is the opium of the people” and “Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction.”

And Vladimir Lenin didn't say: “A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could.”

Conservapedia manufactured those quotes by Atheist Fathers of Communism, linking Atheism directly with communism?

The Atheists didn't kill tens of millions for living their faith?

Perhaps you also deny that there was any persecution of religion in these countries?

Perhaps these communist leaders weren't even Atheists?

They're just being lied against by Conservapedia, right?

That's exactly what it takes to be Atheist. To deny the Truth.

Wikipedia is also anti-Atheist too abi?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_UnionWhen the Soviet Union was established by the Bolsheviks in 1922, it was the constitutional organization which took over from the Russian Empire. At the time of the 1917 Revolution, the Russian Orthodox Church was deeply integrated into the autocratic state enjoying official status. This was a significant factor that contributed to the Bolshevik attitude to religion and the steps they took to control it.[1] Thus the USSR became the first state to have, as an ideological objective, the elimination of religion[2] and its replacement with universal atheism.[3][4] The communist regime confiscated religious property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in schools.[5] The confiscation of religious assets was often based on accusations of illegal accumulation of wealth.

The vast majority of people in the Russian empire were, at the time of the revolution, religious believers, whereas the communists aimed to break the power of all religious institutions and eventually replace religious belief with atheism. "Science" was counterposed to "religious superstition" in the media and in academic writing. The main religions of pre-revolutionary Russia persisted throughout the entire Soviet period, but they were only tolerated within certain limits. Generally, this meant that believers were free to worship in private and in their respective religious buildings (churches, mosques, etc.), but public displays of religion outside of such designated areas were prohibited. In addition, religious institutions were not allowed to express their views in any type of mass media, and many religious buildings were demolished or used for other purposes.[citation needed]

State atheism in the Soviet Union was known as gosateizm,[2] and was based on the ideology of Marxism–Leninism. As the founder of the Soviet state, V. I. Lenin, put it:

Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.[6]

Marxist–Leninist atheism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and elimination of religion. Within about a year of the revolution, the state expropriated all church property, including the churches themselves, and in the period from 1922 to 1926, 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and more than 1,200 priests were killed. Many more were persecuted


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
State promotion of atheism as a public norm first came to prominence in Revolutionary France (1789-1799).[1] Revolutionary Mexico followed similar policies from 1917, as did Marxist-Leninist states. The RSFSR (1917-1991) and the Soviet Union (1922-1991) had a long history of state atheism, whereby those seeking social success generally had to profess atheism and to stay away from houses of worship; this trend became especially militant during the middle Stalinist era from 1929 to 1939. The Soviet Union attempted to suppress public religious expression over wide areas of its influence, including places such as central Asia.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union
Throughout the history of the Soviet Union (1922-1991), Soviet authorities suppressed and persecuted various forms of Christianity to different extents depending on the particular era. Soviet policy, based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and the elimination of religious beliefs.[1]

The state was committed to the destruction of religion,[2][3] and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic teachings, and generally promoted atheism as the truth that society should accept.[4][5] The total number of Christian victims of Soviet state atheist policies, has been estimated to range between 12-20 million

Keep denying what is known all over the world.

nobilis:
My guy, all religions disappear at one time or the other. It has always been like that since the beginning of the world. When a people's reality and their civilisation and their culture start undergoing subtle but persistent and unrelenting changes, religious beliefs begin to change as well. That is how it has been.

Back to the issue.
None of the christians who have responded to this thread have given any educative counter-argument to the OP's post.
Even though the bible exhorts you to teach all the nations about God, when the opportunity comes to do that, all you guys do is to hide behind the bible and hurl insolent remarks at your opponents.
No wonder christianity is losing some ground in some places. In the early days of christianity, in the times of people like Origen, Jerome, Augustine of Hippo, Eusebius of Caeserea, Ambrose of Milan, Cyprian and other church fathers, people were won over to Christianity through public debates. But when Christians are faced today with such challenges to their faith, they just decide to hide behind the bible and "blind" faith.

As for the post, I never said it is true or false. But there is enough evidence (which can still be verified, anyway) that it might be true. And instead of you to provide contrary evidence to counter the OP, you resort to insults.

Can you face a public debate honestly?

If so, for a start, do you believe the OP to be a fact?

justaqad:
i am sure you got my message..
Read my posts again,i never emphasised on the inerrancy of enumah elish,just the availability.
Science accepts mistakes,they strive to be better,unlike religion thats claiming inerrancy


well you could be nicer if you stop reasoning like a deluded person you are.

You emphasized its availability, age, validity, reputation of the archeologists and their openness.

Yet you have never seen the document, nor any archeologists.

When pushed, the proof you offered for all of this is that it is on the internet.

You attack religion for claiming inerrancy, foolishly unaware that you are claiming inerrancy of the age and validity of the Enuma elish.

I will not call you a fool.

Dapo777:
I don't want to tell you,or you don't want to read?


Christians keep saying "truth" till now no ones know what exactly this "truth" is.

Keep wallowing in foolishness.

Dapo777:
You have nothing to say because the evils of your religion have been exposed.

Clap clap!

Everyone can see how intelligent you are.

Dapo777:
That's not how you put it. You should specifically note that although I didn't mention "325AD" ,it can be only be inferred.

If I say Christianity started at the council of nicea (although I meant organized Christianity, I didn't mention it),that doesn't mean I specifically said it started at 325AD, as a matter of fact I might not believe the council of nicea started at 325AD how would you be So sure I hold the same view with everyone? Presumption!

You can't win a court case with me. That's sure.

When did Christianity start?

Dapo777:
By the way go and read that thread I quoted your name into,and tell me if you still hold the false view that Christianity started from nothing.

You dont want to tell me when Christianity started any more.

These are the kind of lies you have to cling to to be Atheist.

You have to deny the truth and hate it.

Dapo777:
Italo what do you have to say about this thread?

Nothing. You?

Dapo777:
I just quoted ur name on a thread that answers your question since it seems you don't know how Christianity started. Go and read it,and give your opinion.

By the way I never mentioned 325AD which still qualifies you as a liar.

I never mentioned 325AD that makes you a liar.

Ok. Your were talking about another Council of Nicea which marked the start of Christianity then.

When did that one hold?

justaqad:
its available online..
The manual is real.


as at that time they fooled everyone.just as religion.

Some people had BLIND FAITH in what they were saying.

They later admitted there were no WMDs...after years of fooling their worshippers.

thats the beauty of it.
They admitted they were wrong,unlike you guys.
When will you admit god is a sham?

So, to you, religion is false, scientific evidence can be false.

The only thing that cannot be false is the Enuma elish, and that is because it's on the internet...yet Religious teaching, Bible and WMD scientific evidence are on the Internet too o.

My friend, I wont call you a fool.

I choose to be nice.

davien:
lol...is this all? "atheists are cowardly" and linking. atheism to communism is all you can do?.

It's not me, it's the Fathers of Communism that linked it directly to Atheism.

In a recent interview D'Souza declared:
“ Richard Dawkins argues that at least the atheist regimes didn't kill people in the name of atheism. Isn't it time for this biologist to get out of the lab and read a little history? Marxism and Communism were atheist ideologies. Stalin and Mao weren't dictators who happened to be atheist; atheism was part of their official doctrine.
It was no accident, as the Marxists liked to say, that they shut down the churches and persecuted the clergy...[15]
”
Dinesh D'Souza stated in another interview:
“ As one writer put it, “Leaders such as Stalin and Mao persecuted religious groups, not in a bid to expand atheism, but as a way of focusing people’s hatred on those groups to consolidate their own power.” Of course I agree that murderous regimes, whether Christian or atheist, are generally seeking to strengthen their position. But if Christian regimes are held responsible for their crimes committed in the name of Christianity, then atheist regimes should be held accountable for their crimes committed in the name of atheism. And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a “new man” and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist.[16] ”
Karl Marx said "[Religion] is the opium of the people". Marx also stated: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."[17]


Vladimir Lenin
Vladimir Lenin similarly wrote regarding atheism and communism: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."[18]
Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.[19]
The atheism in communist regimes has been and continues to be militant atheism that has committed various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and the oppression of religious leaders and believers.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26] In the atheistic and communist Soviet Union, 44 anti religious museums were opened and the largest was the 'The Museum of the History of Religion and Atheism' in Leningrad’s Kazan cathedral.--Conservapedia.

davien:
point is nobody kills for "atheism"... just like nobody kills in the name of a lack of belief in aliens,fairies.

Ah! But Atheists kill tens of millions for believing God.

davien:
You can quote anti-atheists all day long,the fact remains that nobody kills without a belief...and atheism is merely an unbelief.
Upon investigation of that copy-paste article you keep posting I traced it back to conservapedia
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder
A site notorious for giving bias views and contrary opinions about events...their most ridiculous assertions
http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Ridiculous_quotes_from_Conservapedia
Conservapedia is also a christian apologist version of wikipedia...so I expect no less than link atheism to mass murder,conservapedia also links homosexuality to psychiatric problems and claimed the earth ejaculated on the moon to create its craters during noah's flood,lol.
Its best you go deal with the s3x scandals,perhaps the pope might ordain them and you'll automatically go with it.

Ad hominem.

Prove them wrong!

Are they lying against Karl Marx and Lenin who directly linked Communism to Atheism?

Dapo777:
Can you quote where I wrote that there was nothing like Christianity until 325AD?

If not you just confirmed to everyone,that you are truly a liar who don't deserve any reply from anyone for that matter.

You just type without thinking, obviously.

Here is your quote below (The Council of Nicea held in 325AD):

It started at the council of nicea . So stop lying

Dapo777:
By the way, if a religion started at a point in time by some people(followers of Jesus) does that mean Christianity started from nothing?

There was no Christianity..then Christianity emerged. One can say it started from nothing.

Dapo777:
By the way Christianity was a divided religion before the council of nicea even after the council, there was never a time when Christianity was all one united religion till now.

It started at the council of nicea . So stop lying

Which of the bold should we take, confused soul. Did Christianity start at the Council of Nicea in 325AD as you first stated...or Christianity existed before the Council as you have stated now?

Dapo777:
I hope you know that Jesus was not a Christian but practised Judaism?

Irrelevant!

davien:
All you did was quote mine the catholic church being charitable and all the likes....then quote mined a quote linking atheism/atheists to communism....and tag it off with "evidence is overwhelming" when the majority of your posts were cherry-picked.
I could also go and quote mine the various s3x scandals of the church...and link catholicism with nazi russia.

You started out by suggesting Religion served to suppress what is true and good...and that Atheists dont engage in "killing crusades"...I then showed you how the Catholic Church practically built Science, indeed Western Civilization...and how Atheists are the worst mass murderers in history...with overwhelming, universally known evidence. If you have evidence that any of the points in my quotes in untrue, provide it.

davien:
And it was giodarno bruno who was burnt at the state for advancing a copernican system(i left that out,thinking it was copernicus)

"Beginning in 1593, Bruno was tried for [b]heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges including denial of several core Catholic doctrines (including the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and Transubstantiation). Bruno's pantheism was also a matter of grave concern.[4] The Inquisition found him guilty, and in 1600 he was burned at the stake in Rome's Campo de' Fiori. After his death he gained considerable fame, particularly among 19th- and early 20th-century commentators who regarded him as a martyr for science"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
Now,how many "donations" the church makes today....makes it right to burn someone alive....?
This was ofcourse the norm for heresy....

1. Stop lying. Bruno wasn't condemned for advancing Copernican System. He was tried for Heresy and the likes. Even your wiki quote proves you false.

2. The Inquisition was an attempt by the Catholic Church to stop unjust executions. Heresy was a capital offense against the state. Rulers of the state, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw heretics as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath.

When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig. It was not easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. The lord needed some basic theological training, very few did. The sad result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent judge of the crime.

The Catholic Church's response to this problem was the Inquisition, an attempt to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges.

From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.

Most people tried for heresy by the Inquisition were either acquitted or had their sentences suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ. The underlying assumption of the Inquisition was that, like lost sheep, heretics had simply strayed.

If, however, an inquisitor determined that a particular sheep had purposely left the flock, there was nothing more that could be done. Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to secular authorities. Despite popular myth, the Inquisition did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense, not the Church. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.

As Wikipedia states, Bruno was found guilty of many charges of heresy and the proper sentence for the time was meted out. The Church was there to make sure he received a fair trial.
https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110209102919AAlkPTL

davien:
since you,re so good at referencing wiki pages why not wiki the salem witch trials and see the evils done in the name of christianity?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials

[b] "And now Nineteen persons having been hang'd, and one prest to death, and Eight more condemned, in all Twenty and Eight, of which above a third part were Members of some of the Churches of N. England, and more than half of them of a good Conversation in general, and not one clear'd; about Fifty having confest themselves to be Witches, of which not one Executed; above an Hundred and Fifty in Prison, and Two Hundred more accused; the Special Commision of Oyer and Terminer comes to a period."
— Robert Calef


"When I put an end to the Court there ware at least fifty persons in prision in great misery by reason of the extream cold and their poverty, most of them having only spectre evidence against them and their mittimusses being defective, I caused some of them to be lettout upon bayle and put the Judges upon consideration of a way to reliefe others and to prevent them from perishing in prision, upon which some of them were convinced and acknowledged that their former proceedings were too violent and not grounded upon a right foundation ... The stop put to the first method of proceedings hath dissipated the blak cloud that threatened this Province with destruccion."
— Governor William Phips, February 21st, 1693


I,m sure these are the "just" acts you were talking about earlier.

These people were killed by CIVIL AUTHORITIES who had no affiliation to my religion, which is Catholicism.

But compare that small number to how many the ATHEIST CIVIL AUTHORITIES have killed to advance your Atheist religion. Tens of millions!

And what good has your religion brought the world? Bondage, destruction and death!

davien:
And your rebuttal of raymond agiles as dubious is not regarding the events of the killings but of his accounts of various hear-say to raise up certain people.
"Like many of the Crusaders and the Crusade's themselves, Raymond of Aguilers motives during the Crusade have been questioned. This is particularly true in regards as to why he wrote the Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem. Raymond of Aguilers claimed he wrote to inform the Bishop of Viviers and the general populace of the true actions in regards to crusade. This was in direct response to rumors spread by several deserters and traitors according to Aguilers. Other historians, however, contend that Raymond of Aguilers actually wrote the Historia Francorum qui Ceperunt Iherusalem to raise up his own liege Raymond IV of Toulouse. Aguilers, being the one responsible for his liege's spiritual being, could possible gain further prestige by portraying Raymond IV of Toulouse as a truly holy individual. This would further explain why during the capture of Antioch Aguilers focused heavily on the finding of the Holy Lance by Peter Bartholomew instead of focusing on the accounts of two saintly figures aiding in the battles as described in the Gesta Francorum."

If his motives during the crusades are questionable, how can he be trusted to write honestly on the crusades.

Also, the conduct of the troops don't make the idea of the crusades bad, just like the conduct of Allied troops dont make the fight against Hitler bad. Think well, for once.

?

davien:
I doubt anyone does anything dangerous in the name of "atheism"...
You can't see an atheist ISIS group because atheism vouches for no position on attitudes towards theists..
Only dictatorships where people have motives to eliminate religions do such e.g nazism or communism.. people then tag "atheism did it" as though atheism is a creed.

The only reason Atheist radical groups are not as prominent as ISIS, Al Qaeda or Boko Haram is that Atheists are in the minority so the radicals would be very few compared to the general population and would be easily extinguished. And Atheists are cowardly.

That's why the dictators do it for Atheism when they have all the powers of the State at their disposal.

Vox Day notes concerning atheism and mass murder:
“ Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal162 acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao …
The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.
The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.
There Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation!"

nobilis:
And how do you know it is a lie?
What proof do you have that it is a lie or you just believe by faith that it is a lie?
Where did the bible say that Jesus was or wasn't married?
Christians sef.

Believe what you like. Someday your 'truth' about Jesus will make Christianity disappear.

zyzxx:
. Am in love wit all ur responses.
dey av faith in meaningless things

Thank you .

When someone has faith in what reporters (who we know, can lie) said about archeologists and Enuma elish...without ever seeing the archeologists or the document...

Then quarrels with me because I believe what my Church leaders tell me about the Bible...

We can safely say that person is being foolish and confused.