Where christians the original extremists?

> Came from the desert and had strict customs
> Originally despised by all, most people had a negative bias against them
> Infiltrated step by step the decadent roman world
> Slowly but steadily took positions of power
> When they finally took absolute power, they quickly ordered the destruction of their former enemies

Is this a constant with new religions? Have something simillar happened to say, with the first buddhists on south-east Asia?

>Is this a constant with new religions?

No, it's an Abrahamic thing. The kikes genocided every non-kike they could find when they first adopted jehova-worship, the christards did the same and the mudscums have followed in their wake. I suspect it has something to do with the total lack of morality in these religions, where blind obedience to an arbitrary set of rules takes the place of genuine moral reasoning, allowing people to commit even the most horrific crimes with a clean conscience.

You have a point.

Not trying to defend that behaviour, but doesnt those laws and texts explicitely give them a moral or ethical code?

What happens with other religions that also have a written set of rules like Taoism and their Tao te Ching. Taoist although lax in some aspect, were (if any taoist survive) extremely moral people.

Also confucians had a rigid strict set of codes and moral customs.

Then, where is morality coded on classic religion? We know we have written examples on texts but who gave them the absolute authority?

Are you saying Christians are Jews?

>was ISIStianity the original ISIS?
Sandreligions gonna sandreligion.

As a matter of fact any Christian who opposes the Islamization of Europe is a hypocrite. They are only doing the same thing and using the same methods that the Christians used two millenia ago.

>parasite and infiltrate a superior culture
>go for the women and marginalized individuals which are the weakest link in the chain of society
>stir shit up and when met with response from the authorities, claim persecution
>attract the attention of opportunistic and demagogue politicians
>when gaining power, viciously persecute all opposition

They don't oppose Islam qua Islam. They oppose it because they are fighting for the same turf.

>everyone hated them!
>but they also attracted converts and gained influential positions in society!

ok op

The rise of Islam in Europe is directly the result of existential malaise caused by aggressive secularism and the decline of the church.

Christians are also in a way the first liberals.

>you know all that tolerance we were demanding from you? You're not gonna get any from us

>the rise of the new totalitarian sand religion is due to the decline of the competing sand religion
Your point?

That secularism is a joke.

Well, the Abrhamic religions tend to give their followers a holier-then-thou thing.

Christfaggotry is a joke, except it's not funny.

>As a matter of fact any Christian who opposes the Islamization of Europe is a hypocrite. They are only doing the same thing and using the same methods that the Christians used two millenia ago

>>parasite and infiltrate a superior culture

If Europe was still Christian, this would be true, but Europe is a rotting carcass of it's former glory

>>go for the women and marginalized individuals which are the weakest link in the chain of society

This isn't true of Muslims, most of the "refugees" are men, and the change affecting Europe is a foreign demographic one; the same could be argued for Christians, but you'd have to identify which demographic.
>>stir shit up and when met with response from the authorities, claim persecution
Rome demanded tribute to pagan gods. What does Europe require of Muslims? Don't jihad?
>>attract the attention of opportunistic and demagogue politicians
How was this true for Christians? Heck how is this true for even Muslims?
>>when gaining power, viciously persecute all opposition
This is true for every system of beliefs, ever.
>They don't oppose Islam qua Islam. They oppose it because they are fighting for the same turf.
Is this your thesis or a supporting point? I'm going to need evidence either way

How's your Arabic coming along?

I don't remember reading about Christians wanting to establish a theocratic state that beheaded infidels and waged an eternal crusade against the Romans, nor do I remember them commiting mass murder before they got into power.

Thus, why I never liked the Abrahamic religions.

>blind obedience to an arbitrary set of rules takes the place of genuine moral reasoning

Jesus LITERALLY preached against this exact kind of behavior. Why do you think the Pharisees hated him so much?

>Healing on the Sabbath?!? THAT IS AGAINST THE RULES REEEEEE

t. Dylan "Sverjmyr the Gray" Smith

>implying Christianity isn't just about Jesus's preaching
I will take "Who is Paul?" for $500

>Who is Paul?

The author of this verse which similarly denounces blind obedience to rules:

He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

- 2 Cor 3:6

No, people were genociding and raping before Abraham was even born.

If Europe was still Christian, this would be true, but Europe is a rotting carcass of it's former glory

its kind of hard to infiltrate and parasitize a culture that isn't a rotting carcass. Rome was on the downslope of its own history by the time Christianity came to be and it only proved to become more decadent as time went on

>This isn't true of Muslims, most of the "refugees" are men, and the change affecting Europe is a foreign demographic one; the same could be argued for Christians, but you'd have to identify which demographic.

are refugees not weak links in the social chain? The point still stands, both religions targeted easy to convert individuals and used them to expand the follower base

>Rome demanded tribute to pagan gods. What does Europe require of Muslims? Don't jihad?

This is the most annoying thing here, even without a demand by the western world to act human they continue to stir up shit and cause problems. At least early christians had some small moral base to justify their actions

>This is true for every system of beliefs, ever.
agreed desu, it doesnt matter what kind of sky fairy you believe in. Most religions are cults designed specifically to control a populace and this is the kind of thing that results from attempting to take control of society from a standpoint of morality

More or less yes.

But how do we wipe them out? There are so many of them, and atheism just lacks the appeal needed to get the job done.

What can overcome kikery?

Thelemetism.

You're wrong.

Look up the religious turmoil of India and SE Asia.

Take a look at the history of Jainism.

Jainism.

because one person couldn't commit mass murder before

/thread

Ah yes the belief system founded by a homosexual junkie degenerate is just what the West needs to get back on track!

What Jesus "taught" is not what Christianity is about. Have you taken a look at the bible? Half the book is fucking Paul and Jesus never wrote anything, he's used as a sock puppet by every writer who seems to have him saying all sorts of contradicting things.

And for the vast majority Christian history the bible wasn't the center of the religion! It wasn't even real document until the 3rd or 4th centuary. And after it was made the power of a bishop was greater than the power of the bible.

The bible has only been the supreme force after the Protestant reformation.

I'll repeat. Christianity slimed it's way up civilization before there was such a thing as the new testament.

>literally roleplaying

That cannot be true if Jesus is the God of the Torah. It's that simple. And no, and the Pharisees hated him for many reasons not just one that happens to support your ridiculous claim.

The idea that only faith in Jesus is required for salvation is a grotesque and evil dogma that has lead to untold wickedness. The fact that Jesus replaced one set of arbitrary rules with another one is not a positive thing, Judaism was leaving it's violent stage when Paul kickstarted the cycle all over again.

>Christianity is not about the teachings of Christ

this is no way whatsoever is contrary to his point, nor does it attack the credibility of secularism. what a fucking waste

shitposting

Is that what they taught you in Yeshiva?

The only rules Jesus preached were to love God with all your heart, soul and mind and to love your neighbor as yourself.

Also, where do you see Paul advocating violence?

>The only rules Jesus preached were to love God with all your heart, soul and mind and to love your neighbor as yourself.

Well the second part is literally impossible, and the first part is something a demon would want, not god. What sense does it make for god to demand people worship him? Isn't setting up religions to lead people astray what the devil is supposes to do? Idiotic.

Hey, it's fun! And come on now, it spawns great men!

christians were the ultimate fedoras apparently, on top of being wrong.

With God, all things are possible and to know God is to worship Him.

Nice thought terminating cliche. Good goy.

What do you mean is it consistent with new religions?

Name another that behaved like this. Islam wasn't as religiously extreme as it was politically at first. Muhammad and his merry men were conquerors first, missionaries second.

"Even the demons believe and they are not saved"
Quite spreading progressive bullshit. The NT is pretty fucking clear that you need to outright submit yourself entirely to him, not just 'know him." Anything short of that would be considered self idolatry, and has been historically.

Paul wasn't calling himself a slave/ servant of Christ for shits and giggles. To serve God is to worship Him.

Through appealing to the masses, by stealing pagan morals and attaching the fear of god to them. Degenerate.

Any religion that considers being a slave, to anyone or anything, is an extremist religion.

The demons know that God exists but they do not know Him just like I know the president exists but I do not know him.

Christians choose to serve God because we love Him.

>Christians choose to serve God because we love Him.

And you "love" him because if you DON'T, he'll burn you in a lake of fire forever. Because he "loves" you, too!

We love Him because although we failed He forgave us.

If every new religion that comes (not heresies or minor variant) comes spawns extremist that behave like dindus on bath salts or that it is just a Abrahamic thing

>He forgave us.

"Forgave" you? Yeah, no. If someone forgives you, that's it, over and done. If someone "forgives" you but then expects you to grovel pathetically and sing his praises all day, OR ELSE ITS THE FIERY PIT FOR YOU, then that's not actually "forgiveness", that's "blackmail".

>original extremists

no, not realy, no, definitely not original, humans just have some general tendencies

As I continue to stumble He continues to forgive and it gives me great joy to sing His praises.

I'm not sure what he was referring to, I can't think of a time where Paul directly condoned violent behavior. What he did do that fucked shit up up to this day is reinforce sexism and anti-homosexuality (the term homophobia pisses me off). Before I go on let me remind you that when Paul wrote his letters, he claimed that they were divine, being very clear when giving his own personal opinion. So he's reinforcing these destructive prejudices with an understood "thus says the Lord." (I Corinthians 7: 25)

He declared that women could not speak in church services - they were declared qualified only to teach kids.

He also justifies the submission of women to their husbands and male church leaders by pointing out that Adam wasn't the one who was deceived but rather Eve who was and sinned and caused Adam to sin as well. To atone for this transgression, all women must be tortured in childbirth. Imagine what that does to a girl's perspective. Imagine what that did and continues to do to billions of them. (I Timothy 2, I Corinthians 14:34-35) Fuck Paul.

Regarding homosexuality, his multiple condemnations of it led to 2 millennia of their persecution, which continues to this day. Not so much in the West, but its affects still show there too. (Rom 1: 26-27, I Corinthians 6: 9-10, I Timothy 1: 8-11) Imagine living in a society that considers your nature utterly shameful and worships a God that at one point commanded his people to stone them in the public square.

So yea, not violence per se, but he's responsible for an unfathomable amount of pain. Not a whole lot of people can top him.

He helped countless people tremendously as well, but when you take into account the scope of the atrocities you just cannot praise this guy.

Good goy. Don't waver now, or else ITS THE FIERY PIT! Because he LOVES you!

Stockholm Syndrome

Women were created to help men and it is true that Eve chose to trust the serpent.

Homosexuality is a detestable practice that ought to be discouraged because it is nothing more than sterile stimulation of the flesh.

I am sure that Paul would rather you praise Jesus than himself.

>Egypt
>religious career was a respectable job.
>you would actually work hard. Learn all sorta of rites according to your rank and get privileges equal to those of the Pharaoh himself.
>All while following your path towards eternal life and enlightenment.
>some millenia later, a bunch of proto-Canaanites invent some backwards dogma and call it religion.
>they pretty much profit from it and use it to justify wars against X nation or people.
>mfw their religion is spreading
>mfw their religion got several dlcs and a sequel.
>mfe crippled spirituality everywhere by twisting foreign beliefs and legends to assimilate them, provoked genocides on all continents and is basically a big business.
Life is not fair.

Just because some of the stuff sounds horrible to our modern minds does not make it not True.

Have you ever met a homosexual that wasn't a raging materialist? Who acted contrary to his own gender and engaged in perversity?

Don't believe the lies you see on television about gays or lesbians, there completely nuts in real life. Devoid of any detectable virtue or even basic self control.

>Don't believe the lies you see on television about gays or lesbians, there completely nuts in real life. Devoid of any detectable virtue or even basic self control.

oof man. That's pretty tough to read. The thing is, most of what went into forming my opinion of people who are gay was having been friends with many. I've not draw your conclusion, and I think that someone who honestly gets to know a good few would as well.

But even if that were to be the case, a person's behavior is a consequence of their genome and the environment it developed in. To condemn them as a person is to be scientifically illiterate.

>To condemn them as a person is to be scientifically illiterate.
What is a man, but a miserable pile of genes and the environment it developed in?

also, if you logically assess the consequences of the verses I cited, rather than suppressing that urge in favor of blind faith, you would see that it is harmful. It is not good. It would be better to do away with. It cannot have come from an entity that is all good, because this could have been better.

whatever it might be, it cannot be something morally accountable to the extent you are claiming.

It is a constant with Revolutions. Religion is just another -and possibly the most powerful- way of subversion against an imperant ideological system.

The Roman authorities saw them as a present menace in the same way the Capitalists powers saw communism as a menace.

It is the word of God. You can't just disagree with it.

>It is the word of God.

According to who? Itself? yeah, real compelling "argument" you have their.

God never says anything, men speak on his behalf.

This is the most pathetic post ive seen on Veeky Forums. You have to be trolling. Cuck

>It is the word of God. You can't just disagree with it.
spot the cuckold

I don't care what you think.

I don't care that you don't care

this is what it boils down to. these are the cold facts. There once were men that wrote these books, and claimed that these writings were inspired by a perfectly good god. But the books have been found to contain incorrect information, so they cannot have been written by a perfect god. Those men were wrong.

This happens all the time. This happens in nearly every single culture. You're not stupid, you just fell for something that you yourself understand billions of others fall for.

Good, then we understand each other. Peace be with you.

well I do care what you think. I thought what you did for most of my life, and I wouldn't wish it on my enemies. I hope one day you try to read these open-mindedly, and I don't blame you for your inability to do so currently.

One thing about Christianity is that when it first started there were different versions. Each social class responded differently.

Highly Jewish communities were Ebionetes. They did not see Jesus as a God nor did they see him as changing any Jewish laws. He was a new prophet introducing new laws that stacked with the old ones. In addition like all Jewish prophets he really didn't care for non-Jews. Most likely James, Jesus's brother was one such person. In general Ebionetes were mostly chill and respected even by Roman authorities.

Upper class gentiles groups who would have been educated in Platonism and hung out in mystery cults tended to be Gnostics. They completly folded Jesus into the Roman way of looking at Gods, putting higher priority on Roman sources than Jewish sources (for instance they rejected 100% of the old testament including it's God). Jesus was one of many Gods, but a very powerful one, that came from the world of Forms to give important advice about the Forms. They are reported to have some really weird rituals but never really caused trouble. They were kind of elitist dick-heads but never caused any real problems beyond being know-it-assholes.

The Christianity we got, and what consitutes most of the cannon work was popular with lower class Gentiles: slaves, prostitutes, people with every reason to be resentful and nothing to lose. This is why the religion was causing such as fuss, you had the scum of the earth united under one banner, saying the oppressed were blessed and their God who didn't do nuffin would return and bring revengence. They were basically proffessional victims and would go out of their way to find ways of being oppressed.

I have read the Bible plenty of times. I do realize that there's a lot in it that's difficult to accept, and that there is a lot in it that seems bigoted, even cruel, by our standards. I realize there is a lot in it that seems not to make sense.

However, I have faith in Christ Jesus, and I believe he has not led me astray. I have seen the way he works in my life and in the lives of others. I believe, contrary to some people, that he does indeed love all people, and wants what is best for us. From my faith in him, I have faith in Scripture.

One of my favorite books of the Bible is actually the Book of Job, precisely because it grapples with aspects of God's behavior that don't always make sense to us. Job maintains his innocence throughout, even though his friends all insist that he must have done something wrong. In the end, though, God himself justifies Job, and crucially, restores or replaces everything that was taken from him. God, in the end, is just, even if it doesn't seem that way at various points in our lives.

I'm not sure what more I can say. I'm sorry you had a bad experience with Christianity. If it really did hurt you, I'm even more sorry. I hope you're at peace.

I understand. I believed as well and helped lead worship for countless church services throughout my community. I benefited tremendously, and felt so immersed in love whenever I'd play it made it difficult to keep tempo.

I grew up with hundreds of people who felt the same way, and saw how their lives were benefited as well. But these affects can be seen in countless other cultures with religions that all contradict each other. Because of this, we are only in a position to say that it is helpful, but when addressing the truth of the underlying cause the only thing we HAVE is reason.

When we are presented with 50 books, each of which claim to have been divinely inspired by a perfect entity and each of which disagree with each other, and each of which manifest intensely spiritual experiences, the ONLY thing we have at our disposal to discern which is true is to be as reasonable as possible.

If you yourself truly look at it strictly from this position, I know you'll see the contradiction. So has nearly every ethicist. We cannot trust the Bible given our current circumstances.

How then can you expect a truly good entity to condemn you to eternal suffering for not accepting something like this given our position?

>each of which disagree with each other

They don't tho. Yes you can pull verses out of context and play "gotcha!" but that doesn't change the fact the spiritual framework (which is more than the sum of its parts) is cohesive.

Since the ancients studied carefully by Christian theologians as well, when we speak of what is good it is in reference to our personal well being or that of people in general.

If I am responsible for the sentience of a person and then proceed to torture them, by the very definition that we ascribe to the term "good" I am being evil. For a creator to be considered good in relation to its creation, its behavior towards it must pass the same scrutiny.

As a Christian I was in large company when evangelizing the Bible by showing how its principles helped people. This in a sense was evidence for its truth. How then do we not apply this to areas that are clearly abhorrent and destructive? Clearly irrational or swayed by the culture of their times?

oh no I meant different scriptures entirely

ancients,* studied

what I'm saying is that you have many different scriptures at your disposal, each one led millions of people to experience intense spiritual experiences that benefited their lives, each one claims to have been written by a perfect and good god, but each scripture disagrees.

Either they're all wrong, or one is right. If it makes a claim about physical nature without being allegorical that turns out to wrong, then it wasn't written by a perfect entity. If it claims a certain action is good for people but it turns out that it's not, then it wasn't written by a perfect entity.

The bible makes many erroneous physical and moral claims, and we can openly show why. No faith required.

>the ONLY thing we have at our disposal to discern which is true is to be as reasonable as possible.

Putting aside the fact people become Christian because they meet Jesus, the past 2000 years of history demonstrates Christianity's superiority.

>So has nearly every ethicist.

Obviously not the Christian ones.

>The bible makes many erroneous physical claims

This conclusion is based on the assumption that an omnipotent deity can't selectively intervene in the processes of His creation.

Miracles exist user.

>The bible makes many erroneous moral claims

God defines what is moral; see Euthyphro's second horn.

when talk about what is good we are not talking about what the whims of our potential creator. If you'd like to talk about that then give it another name. A creator that tortures its creation is by definition not good. What you're actually saying is that Christian morality is not based on good and evil, but the whims of Yahweh. But we're gonna change the definition of good and evil to "what Yahweh wants and what Yaweh doesn't want. That's pretty pathetic.

>superiority
easy there buddy. There are many religions lasting many thousands of years with many millions of converts with much more moral and scientifically accurate passages. And even if that weren't to be the case, it doesn't address anything I said. Troll somewhere else.

>This conclusion is based on the assumption that an omnipotent deity can't selectively intervene in the processes of His creation.

So God allowed errors and falsehoods to be preserved in his Bible? To what end? To undermine the authority of his text?

not many thousands but you get the point lol, comparable to Christianity. And again, this is fucking irrelevant because the book is fucking wrong

anyway peace out

When we talk about what is good we are talking about what is true. God is the author of truth and therefore He defines what is good. The Creator has authority to define His creation.

Miracles are neither errors nor falsehoods.

Buddhism

isnt it always the same answer tho - its not a glitch its a feature

>Miracles are neither errors nor falsehoods.

Okay. What about the errors and falsehoods that have nothing to do with miracles, but that simply reflect the general ignorance and superstition of the times? Why did God allow those to persist?

>not turning your glitches into features

To teach us about ourselves.

they were not claimed to be allegorical until after we discovered they were false

But all it teaches us is that no book is perfect, and thus we should not put our trust in anything written by men. This seems to defeat the purpose of recording god's message to his creation in a book in the first place.

No, like was said like 4 fucking times already. It can be TRUE that a creator created creation, but if it chooses to torture its creation than by the VERY DEFINITION OF WHAT GOOD IS, we say that that creator TRULY is EVIL. How is this difficult to grasp? We don't change definitions like that, wtf??

They are true.

The letter kills but the spirit gives life.

The creation chooses to be tortured.

If it says that people were on this planet for 10k years, but everything we study from every angle imaginable strongly suggests we we're on this planet for much much much longer than that, it has nothing to do with miracles. It's just wrong. Multiply this example by a textbook of others, and this endeavor becomes a complete joke.