In reference to https://voat.co/v/atheism/3923743
The false dichotomy is obvious in the modern criticism of 'antiscience':
"you only believe whats in your head and not in magicnegro scienceman and consensus s C i E n C e!"
When the truth is, whats going on is the 'proscience' "pro-mob rule" crowd believes is
"we have been told elected who is believable! Praise them and repeat their words!"
It's emoting, thats all it is. They have replaced scientists with priests, and have replaced rationality with diplomas and expertise-by-establishment-mandate, a cult of manufactured celebrity.
Much of what we call science, before it was co-opted, emerged from the church-supported university system.
The common refrain was "they burned witches!"
No, they burned dykes that taught women abortion.
"They believed the earth was flat and prosecuted scientists who fought against the belief!"
No, Galileo was not in fact prosecuted for believing the earth was round, thats actually a lie, like the holocaust.
Galileo was persecuted because he was a massive asshole and actively went on about calling out the very church who supported him. And then he pissed off the people judging him, and they still allowed him to live and continue his study, confined as it were.
"They burned witches at salem!"
There was ongoing land disputes, largely political, and motivated by traveling merchants (no I'm not kidding you) who wanted the colonists land.
"Muh crusades were bloody as hell!"
Mostly relegated to a sliver of the middle east, many of whom were volunteers, conscripted in service not to the church but to kings who had political agendas. And again, this was a small sliver of the middle east it happened in. And much of it happened in response to, and only after, centuries of much more massive bloodshed and conquests by muslim invaders into europe and elsewhere.
"Muh christian 7000 year old creation! dinosaurs were fake!"
Most christians have never believed this, though I suspect I'll get cherry picked responses trying to suggest otherwise. Pure hucksterism, promoted and allowed to fester by (((media))) intent on discrediting the faith as a whole.
A lot of branches understand this is allegorical, and philosophical, rather than literal, but
only as recently as the 60-70s has literalism been massively promoted. I wonder why.
"Turn the other cheek. Jesus encouraged your destruction!"
Turn the other cheek was a literal commandment to turn your cheek, so occupying romans would have to use their offhand in public (considered shameful) and be disarmed, do nothing and look weak, or draw their sword and martyr someone causing riots.
"Muh render unto caeser!"
(((Pharasees))) playing fucking words games. Romans demanded taxes. Pharisees hate jesus, wanted him gone, because he was against the temple sacrifice system which kept people in debt and poverty to the jews. Pharisees wanted jesus to speak against the romans, which would cause the romans to execute him, or else for jesus to side with the romans, which would give the pharisee community a reason to assinate him as "a traitor to jews".
Jesus responded "if you THINK you owe it to caeser, pay it. If you DONT think you owe it, then obviously you shouldn't pay it."
going down as one of the first tax objectors and leaders against the power of taxation in recorded history, telling them to think for themselves.
"No historical record jesus existed! Oy vey!"
The people who write this also claim "Abraham existed! Buddha existed. MooHamMad was a historic figure!"
What do you think? Does it sound like they have an agenda?
**"Thou shalt not kill! Jesus would rather let you die for your god, including men women, children,
the elderly. Die for jesus goy!"**
Actually, the more accurate translation from the greek and hebrew is "murder".
Murder is an unjust killing, one not done in defense of family, self, property, or people.
**"Jesus said, 'live by the sword die by the sword!' He obviously meant for you to let your enemies
kill you! Oy vey if you let your enemies kill you, you win!"**
Uh no. If that were the case he would not have wrote "if you don't own a sword, sell your robe
and buy one", and "I come to bring a sword, not peace."
What he meant was simple: He was telling his disciple, who wasnt a disciplined soldier, not
to be a fucking idiot and fight a whole group of trained soldiers. More importantly he
was saying "whicher battles you choose, avoid the ones you cant win. God doesn't want you to die."
"Jesus loved the jews! He as a jew! Oy vey you worship a jew!"
- the jews killed him. He obviously wasnt one of them
- He tore down the temple system of sacrifices, a system that, like usury, created debts
for temple services and sacrificial animals, enslaving and impoverishing everyone stuck with the
system.
- He drove out the (((money changers))) and pharisees from the temple, with fury. No jew
would do this.
- He was rejected by 'his own' from the beginning.
- The jews tried to subvert him and play a bait and switch using a certain 'simon the magus'.
- He gave graciously to cherity, promoted it, fought greed, fought degeneracy, promoted
humulity and patience and long-suffering.
Does this sound like someone who is jewish or loved anything jewish?
No jew would be willing to die for such things. Never forget, they tried to kill one of our
greatest, a teacher and would-be savior, Christ.
"Muh love thy neighbor! You have to love gays and trannies and adulterers and all other sorts of faggotry!"
Yes he hung out with the worst and even advocated 'love'.
But his was a stern and remanding love.
Thats why he admonished wealthy men "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle
than a rich man to get to heaven", he was speaking of the corruption of money in general,
and specifically the usury of the pharisees.
I'll just quote wikipedia because I don't give a fuck any more.
John 7:53–8:11
This story, beloved for its revelation of God's mercy toward sinners, is found only in John's Gospel.[16] Jesus was teaching in the Temple in Jerusalem. Some scribes and Pharisees interrupted his teaching as they brought in a woman who had been taken in the very act of adultery. Their treatment of the woman is callous and demeaning. They stood her before him, declared the charge, reminded him of Moses' command that such women be stoned. More precisely, the law speaks of the death of both the man and the woman involved.[Lev. 20:10] [Deut. 22:22-24] We are left wondering why the man was not brought in along with the woman.
"What do you say?" they asked. If he is lax toward the law, then he is condemned. But if he holds a strict line, then he has allowed them to prevail in their ungodly treatment of this woman and will be held responsible by the Romans if the stoning proceeds. After a time of silence, Jesus stooped down and wrote with his finger on the ground. It was unlawful to write even two letters on the sabbath but writing with dust was permissible (m. shabbat 7:2; 12:5). The text includes no hint of what he wrote. The woman's accusers were trying to entrap Jesus, not just the woman. To them she was a worthless object to be used to "catch" Jesus on a theological legal issue.
Finally, Jesus stood up and said to the accusers, "Let the one among you who is without sin cast the first stone." He stooped down once more and again wrote on the ground. In his answer Jesus did not condone adultery. He compelled her accusers to judge themselves and find themselves guilty—of this sin and/or others. No one could pass the test, and they slipped out one by one, beginning with the eldest.
When Jesus and the woman were finally alone, he asked her a simple question, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?" She simply replied, "No one, Lord." She becomes a memorable example of the fact that "God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.[Jn. 3:17] Jesus says to her, "Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on no longer sin."[Jn. 8:11]
"Here is mercy and righteousness. He condemned the sin and not the sinner." (Augustine In John 33.6) But more than that, he called her to a new life. While acknowledging that she had sinned, he turned her in a new direction with real encouragement. Jesus rejected the double standard for women and men and turned the judgment upon the male accusers. His manner with the sinful woman was such that she found herself challenged to a new self-understanding and a new life.[1][17]
Once again it was just the pharisees trying to entrap jesus, like the pot stirring
traitorous shitbirds that they were.
In all likelihood this was a triple bind, because knowing (((them))), it was in fact an innocent
man and women, falsely accused, just like these scumbags did to him, and they were trying to get jesus
to endorse murder. And jesus, knowing their nature, likely already knew or suspected this.
Knowing the values of the time, I suspect jesus wouldn't have disagreed with stoning her if she was
guilty, except the entire thing was a trap, and he knew it.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] captainstrange [S] ago
Second post because I couldn't fit it all
"Muh women must merry their rapists!"
Everything outside of marriage was either 1. rape, and/or 2. adultery, including
what we call relationships and dating. And because women couldn't legally consent
to anything without their husband's permission (or other leading male family member),
everything was by definition, rape. They intentionally fail to explain this in
(((modern))) translations of the bible.
STDs were a death sentence back then. They also understood sloppy seconds spread disease,
could leave men who married ('lay' with them) them being accused of being 'unmanly' or
ridiculed because someone 'got to her' first. Back then they also understood sleeping with
multiple partners ruined people's ability to pair bond, important for the stability of
life long marriages, families, and thus society.
So marrying your 'rapist' was more like the middle-eastern version of a shotgun wedding.
A crude aproximation of "18 years of child support" enforced by family members with swords,
knives, and clubs, instead of by the state.
OTHER LIES, SLANDER, AND CHARGES TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT
"Muh Mormons love jews!"
Yeah so what? A branch, that for the sake of not being obliterated by the zionist occupation
government, formed stockholm syndrome. Mostly unjewed in their culture and tradition.
"Muh mormon magic underware"
Please. It's symbolic of chastity, every religion has special clothing. Why are only
mormons singled out for this? Oh right, because the people that harp on this are fucking
shitstirring jews.
"Muh mormon fees! Taxes! Penalties"
Almost universally goes to 1. supporting their economy, 2. supporting cherities, 3. supporting
actual church functions and services. Anyone saying otherwise is a liar with an agenda.
"Muh all christians love brown people!"
Yeah that is a problem. The function of religion is to condense irrationality and utilize
it for constructive purposes. "I fear dying" -> "Theres god (and heres why). He wants
you to do good things (build civilization and provide for your family)."
Only someone that loves chaos or destruction could be against using a negative trait of
human psychology, for the constructive purposes of a higher callings, such as duty, discipline,
work ethic, and community, and courage in the face of the inevitable (death).
I see no reason that christianity cannot be brought back to "africa for the blacks, south
america for the browns, china for the chinese, palistine for the palistinians."
Well that last ones to fuck with you glowfags.
"Muh rib women is ridiculous!"
I agree. It's an allegory, meant to teach the proper ordering of the family unit and society:
creation derives from male energy, it adds to the world, by expending itself, hence, women.
Women are provided for, built up, taught, and hence, give birth to the family, which gives
birth to the civilized world.
"Muh twenty thousand flavors of christianity. They can't all be right!"
Depends on the lessons they have to teach. Faiths are cultural artifacts, 'technologies',
means of improving the fitness of their respective people's, their success as a civilization.
Some are certainly wrong about some things, and some are certainly right about others.
"Oy vey, hes a satanist universalist!"
Nope. I just believe in the light of reason which nature and/or god has given all men.
A divine pragmatism that lets us see the truth, what works and what doesn't and to
derive a just ordering of our natures and the nature of being, and arrive at
a true reckoning of the things which compose the heavens and the earth, and to, in our individual
capacities, set the world in motion, however small our part in shaping it.
The refinement of christianity is none other than the refinement and renovation of mankind.
**"So you think all religions are valid! Oy vey why believe in your god on a stick when you
can believe in an elephant god or mighty thor goyim!"**
No. Because the hindus et al developed their faith to best serve them,
just as the jews developed their faith to best serve them,
just as the europeans developers their faith to best serve them.
Religion and faith are part of the competition of demographics in the empire of man.
Accept no substitutes. Use what works.
"But but but, jesus was a jew! Christianity is a jew religion."
We've been over this and I'm just gonna copypaste my previous response.