Social Security and the Mark of the Beast

It's been a thought that's been bothering me for a while.

I had done an experiment. Is it possible to get a well paying job without social security or anything tied to it? This means asking for payment in only cash and things like that.

But, I soon hit a huge wall. Without Social Security number, you cannot:

>Open a bank account
>Be employed (as they have to file with IRS using it)
>Be paid anything above poverty (They need to use bank accounts)
>Obtain a loan (mostly used for sizable purchases like a home)
>Obtain photo ID from state DMV.

It's a curious thing. I'm not saying that Social Security is the mark of the beast, but it's certainly a precursor. All the parts of the system of the antichrist seem to be there.

All that seems to be necessary after that is simply pushing a cashless society and putting to death anyone that doesn't have it. And that second part is looking more and more realistic as some cops are known to outright kill people without ID or do not produce a social security number.

As for a cashless society, we see India attempting that right now, along with Finland attempting guaranteed income.

It's a dangerous world we live in now.

Any other thoughts?

>Security is the mark of the beast, but it's certainly a precursor.
it never is because you faggots will keep moving the goalposts, by the time they microchip us all and the only accepted currency is Bitcoin the mark of the beast will just become another metaphor :^)

>Any other thoughts?

You're a paranoid delusional; Revelations is just drug-fueled insanity and back-handed bitching about the Roman Empire.

How is this Veeky Forums related?

Fuck off.

Adjust your tinfoil and go to

Why would bitcoin be the only accepted currency when everyone is microchipped? Presumably the new one world government you're positing would want something they control?

Literal autism.

>it never is because you faggots will keep moving the goalposts,

It's not moving goalposts, it's as it's described in the Bible. You're not allowed or able to buy or sell without the mark of the beast, and are put to death for not having it.

That's pretty cut and dry. SS as it stands now is very close to the "unable to buy or sell" part.

We're now seeing cash transactions being phased out for electronic transactions with specifically necessitate the use of number identifiers such as Social Security.

>You're a paranoid delusional; Revelations is just drug-fueled insanity and back-handed bitching about the Roman Empire.

Large claims with no references to reality. Again, I have personally tried to go out and accomplish these things without using social security at all. Quickly hit this wall.

How is it delusion when the world is literally structured that way? Please tell me the name of a bank that will allow me to open an account without using social security. Or a legal business willing to pay employees only in cash.

>How is this Veeky Forums related?

History and Humanities. Plenty of Christianity deals with humanities. The only history part is dubious, except for the fact that India phasing out a good portion of its cash and Finland experimenting with guaranteed income.

But, those are recent history.

poor fool. you already have the mark of the beast on your scalp and you don't even know it.

I fail to see how this is "tinfoil" when these deal with certain facts about reality.

You cannot open a bank account without social security. Most companies require you to use social security for tax purposes; not producing one results in termination or not being hired.

But, let's talk about history. Generally, a lot of the conspiracies in the past 100 years with respect to government, scandals, and corruption in many of the worldly governments have turned out to be true.

If it's true, how is it tinfoil? If it's true, how is it a conspiracy?

Just to start, massive NSA data sniffing, collusion between for profit companies and government leaders, foreign investor's literally buying elected officials.

These were all once "tinfoil". These were all once "just theories". But, the evidence shows them true.

Do you simply gloss over that which you've discarded as "tinfoil" and proceed to ignore the evidence that comes to light?

Stunning discourse.

I think it's been an insult used to the point where people don't even know what the actual medical disorder consists of anymore.

>History and Humanities. Plenty of Christianity deals with humanities. The only history part is dubious, except for the fact that India phasing out a good portion of its cash and Finland experimenting with guaranteed income
any thread to do with christianity doesn't fit on Veeky Forums. this thread more closely resembles what is typical for /x/. a more Veeky Forums type thread would be a general discussion of revelations and apocalyptic literature or the apocalyptic beliefs of early christians.

Dear god, he's serious. Consult pic related immediately.

>Large claims with no references to reality. Again

Yes, that describes Revelations well.

>How is it delusion when the world is literally structured that way? Please tell me the name of a bank that will allow me to open an account without using social security. Or a legal business willing to pay employees only in cash.

The delusional part is that you're assuming this is proof of some sort of supernatural beast that demands we worship him and accept a mark on our forehead or right hand heralding in the end times in which Jesus and company is going to viciously murder everyone except for 144000 of us rather than just a sign that our state is effectively organized and driven by information technology.

You fucking loony toon.

>itt: social security isn't the mark of the beast but when you think about it it kinda is but what if WE REALLY had the mark of the beast this time like for real haha

This. Oh my god does there need to be a note in our sticky that discussion of the supernatural elements of religion has no place here.

Let's start emailing Hiro.

There either needs to be a theology board or a stricter definition of what elements of religion belong on /x/.

In my opinion anything relating to revelation or supernatural activity doesn't belong on Veeky Forums. Religion should be discussed in the secular and scholarly manner that actual academics use. I mean I know we're not academics but there's literally no discussion to be had with this thread unless you're a bible believing Christian.

This.

Religion should only be discussed in historical and theological terms: any admittance of the supernatural or posting that "what if it was actually real???" should be grounds for deletion, since it belongs on /x/.

>I believe in Christianity because the concept of the prime mover makes sense and the Christian god is a sound expression of it. Here's my attempt to address the historicity of the resurrection.

Veeky Forums acceptable

>I believe in Christianity because I felt the holy spirit and any argument you can make against it is invalid because you don't feel the holy spirit, these things are spiritually perceived and you are spiritually blind.

Belongs in /x/.

Seems pretty straight-forward to me.

why are you all getting riled up over this thread it's no different than of the other /rel/ threads

im not even Christian but I think this can be an interesting thread

Theological terms are supernatural terms. Religious Studies departments have little to do with Theology for this reason.

What the authors of Revelations could have been referencing with the mark of the beast, relative to their time period, is an interesting discussion worthy of Veeky Forums.

Whether or not SSN's are marks of satan, because the poster in question actually believes Revelations is an accurate account of the fucking future. Is not really productive on this board.

Because this board is swamped with dipshit religious threads and this thread, while maybe a more innocuous example, is still an example. In a good world there would be a /rel/ separate from Veeky Forums.

Reread the original post, then reread it again and again and again until you get the picture.

>Yes, that describes Revelations well.

That's very false, actually.

>The delusional part is that you're assuming this is proof of some sort of supernatural beast that demands we worship him and accept a mark on our forehead or right hand heralding in the end times in which Jesus and company is going to viciously murder everyone except for 144000 of us rather than just a sign that our state is effectively organized and driven by information technology.

The problem then becomes why does it seem to parallel what has been prophesied thousands of years before it happens.

It's not delusion to be able to draw parallels or notice patterns. The strange thing is the parallel between something very old and what's currently happening today.

Btw, very nice of you to gloss over all the other factual parts of my post.

Banks require social security to even open an account. Legal businesses (in the sense that their activities are not against the law) most of them also require social security.

How can you explain this parallel?

Is it mere two thousand year old coincidence?

>Theological terms are supernatural terms

My bad, you're right.

Religion on Veeky Forums should only be discussed in historical terms, just how actual academics and scholars discuss it.

A discussion of Christianity without the fundamental meaning and foundation behind it is akin to talking about physics without making any references to mathematics or quantities.

Pretty much, talking shallowly of things you generally do not understand.

>That's very false, actually.

Revelations was either allegorical, or the person writing it was lying, mentally ill, or high.

>The problem then becomes why does it seem to parallel what has been prophesied thousands of years before it happens.

Human brains are wired to find patterns and if you look at just about anything you can find a parallel to something else in it, this is a major component in poetry. Sometimes our tendency to look for patterns brings up false positives.

>Btw, very nice of you to gloss over all the other factual parts of my post.

Because they were irrelevant.

>Banks require social security to even open an account. Legal businesses (in the sense that their activities are not against the law) most of them also require social security.

Because our state is effectively organized around information technology; SSNs are tied into tax collection.

>How can you explain this parallel?

You've looked at it long enough that you can draw up a tenuous parallel. Try it with a popular song and a major event, it's actually pretty easy to do.

>Is it mere two thousand year old coincidence?

Not even that.

No it's akin to talking about Astrology without actually believing the stars guide our fate. In other words, without the faith, without the bullshit. And this is exactly what universities do all the time.

This thread is Theology and Theology is not in fact included in many humanities departments. It's typically only taught at divinity schools and the like. You can't have unbiased scholarship within it because Theologians already assume the existence of God. It isn't Religious Studies, it isn't New Testament Scholarship, it isn't even really Philosophy.

The problem with barring theological terms would be that it would cripple discussion of philosophy. Spinoza for instance would be right out.

Then take it to /x/. If you can't discuss it without academic or philosophical rigor, you shouldn't be discussing it here. Discussion of your faith here needs to stand on more than "I dun feeleded it, so it's real."

Even that obnoxious tripfag Constantine tried to mount an actual defense of the Resurrection's historicity rather than just asserting it on supernatural grounds.

You put religion in there. Remember what you have said. You probably are the one of ''ILLUMINATI IS A SATANIC CULT THAT CONTROLS THE WORLD, THEY ARE STEALING OUR SOULS'' etc.
>mark of the beast

China and India are already implanting biochips into the right hands of their citizens.

It's already happening.

Every country is in debt. Every country's fiat currency is valueless. All it's going to take is a push.

>Cannot read forum instructions.

You keep extrapolating your experience (i.e. likely American) onto how "the world" operates, and this is a common bullshit tactic.

Go to Mexico and ask a Catholic farmer what they think of your "social security is the mark of the beast" nonsense. Like so many others, you are twisting the words of a religious text written thousands of years ago so that it can support your political opinion (which one can only infer is "muh gubmint is duh ebils"). Understand the historical context in which the Bible was written. To anyone with a passing interest in literature, it's abundantly clear that the Bible is an allegorical text rather than instructions or predictions, and to look for literal connections between its text and your relatively privileged contemporary life is foolish.

However, it's your time to waste. So why not waste it with people who will entertain your paranoid bullshit?

>Revelations was either allegorical, or the person writing it was lying, mentally ill, or high.

I don't think you read it very clearly then. Many parts of it tell what the visions meant.

>Human brains are wired to find patterns and if you look at just about anything you can find a parallel to something else in it, this is a major component in poetry. Sometimes our tendency to look for patterns brings up false positives.

And the same can be said for false negatives.

>Because they were irrelevant.

So, let's get this straight. You accuse someone of delusion when they then point to actual factual, easily researched daily occurences. They restate these actual occurences as reason for their conclusion.

You then ignore them and state them as irrelevant, and do not repeal your notion of the person as delusional.

>Because our state is effectively organized around information technology; SSNs are tied into tax collection.

A different way of saying that it's indeed happening. Have you not considered the implications of results?

If we were to take a look at Revelations to the parts pertinent to this, we would see it references a government presiding over many peoples, forced to take the mark of the beast in order to buy or sell.

In this point, you do not dispute that without utilizing a SSN you cannot do what I described and as a consequence are barred from purchase and sales of most things and even employment.

>You've looked at it long enough that you can draw up a tenuous parallel. Try it with a popular song and a major event, it's actually pretty easy to do.

And the exact opposite can be said that you've ignored it long enough that you do not understand it, cannot comprehend it, and cannot make inferences into it.

>Not even that.

How do you explain this particular parallel then? Or it's implications?

Treat modern day history as one of your previous discourses in history. What do you think follows the foundations of a system such as the current?

There's no question that Astrology is nonsense, so this analogy doesn't apply.

To consider faith as the "bullshit' surrounding Christianity, especially considering the historical basis is just astounding from you.

Many people were put to death in the worst ways imaginable for holding to that part you consider "bullshit". This is a historical fact. But, you don't even go so far as to question what it is and why they held onto that fact to the point of agonizing death at the hands of others.

I do think many humanities courses discuss ethics.

Historically, the Church has been the backbone of ethical discussion.

> If you can't discuss it without academic or philosophical rigor, you shouldn't be discussing it here.

There has been no rigor here. There's been insults and dismissals.

If you want to get into the historical basis, we can certainly look up previous Biblical prophecies in the Old Testament that came to pass.

Or, we could discuss this current matter of SS.

>You probably are the one of ''ILLUMINATI IS A SATANIC CULT THAT CONTROLS THE WORLD, THEY ARE STEALING OUR SOULS'' etc.

Yes, actually. Right along side the people saying

>Jet fuel cannot melt steel beams
>NSA is monitoring you
>Iraq had no WMD
>Many world governments are corrupt.
>Bilderberg meetings do happen and they contain heads of many multinational and military powers.

According to you, every conspiracy theory MUST be false, right?

So, what about those other things?

Your post is a bit of a ramble and lightly touches on quite a few things so I'm not sure where to start.

To begin, to many of us the distinction that makes Astrology obviously bullshit and your own faith not is not so clear cut, not at all in fact. In India alone Astrology is a hugely essential part of many aspects of Hindu belief and they probably believe just as strongly as you. It's far from common wisdom that Astrology is nonsense.

The fact that people are willing to die for faith is not something I object to and I don't know why you assume I had never considered that fact. Plenty of people do crazy things for crazy reasons. In Heaven's Gate they castrated themselves before committing group suicide to hitch a ride on a comet. This dedication provides no credence to their beliefs.

And that is the most flabby attempt I've seen to attach Christianity to philosophy as if they were inseparable. True, when discussing many Christian philosophers you have to attempt to understand their Theology but Philosophy can be done completely separate from Theology, and in fact in the modern era mostly is. They are not the same thing and they aren't even really that close truth be told.

My central point is that Christianity as discussed by real academics is mostly secular. Faith is taken out of the question, even by Christians. You're welcome to call such discussion foolish because you feel good when you read the bible or whatever I don't know, I don't care. It is just not an academic way to go about it.

>Go to Mexico and ask a Catholic farmer what they think of your "social security is the mark of the beast" nonsense.

Have you done this?

Then why bring it up?

Because right now, bringing that up, you're only extrapolating your personal view on this matter onto a Mexican Catholic farmer.

If not, we can discuss facts, YOUR personal experiences (AKA what would be considered a primary source in the future), and proceed from there.

> Understand the historical context in which the Bible was written. To anyone with a passing interest in literature, it's abundantly clear that the Bible is an allegorical text rather than instructions or predictions, and to look for literal connections between its text and your relatively privileged contemporary life is foolish.

To state that the Bible was written simply in allegory would be to ignore many of the things that are interpreted within the Bible itself. Revelations does exactly this when it describes Babylon, the whore on the beast. It goes on to describe exactly what it's talking about.

the mark of the beast is morbid. It shows up the callous nature of mankind by indoctrinating them that death is okay. Anyone with it can kill non believers. That's the joke in the Bible. Why would being able to buy and sell matter?

Do you buy food to eat to live?

What if you couldn't? Would it matter then?

I mean why would it matter if you could do it like how is buying and selling blasphemy?

It's not a ramble, it just touches upon many things.

>Astrology.

There is only one absolute truth compared to which all others will always be false. Simply because a large nation or large number of people believe it has no bearing upon it's state of being truthful or not.

>Heaven's Gate

There's an inherent difference between suffering that which other people do to you without your reprisal and that which you do to yourself.

By bringing this up, you can make the claim that people undergoing torture for not claiming 2+2=5 can be considered crazy. Inferring from your post, the sane thing to do would be choose life, avoid the torture, and accept that which you know to be false as true.

This is why bringing up something like Heaven's Gate in comparison to the deaths of those Christians is very poor work on your part.

And, I was in no means attempting to attach anything to Philosophy. Philosophy is mostly a waste of time using more words and semantic tricks to reach mutual understanding than is necessary.

>real academics is mostly secular. Faith is taken out of the question

Then no understanding can be done.

Can you reach a personal understanding of a cell biologist without investigating cells using microscopes?

Can you do the same with an astronomer without a telescope?

Because without those tools, those very people would not have understood anything in their field. And without them, all the knowledge you know is just what someone else told you.

So, to discuss Christianity without the faith is akin to ignoring the tools of the trade, so to speak, and then claim you know it.

If a group of Microbiologists were discussing the functions of an organelle, but they left out the microscope, would their discussion have meaning?

Or the same with an astronomer and a distant galaxy and corresponding telescope?

The point with the Astrology thing is that your faith has no more special a claim to the truth than Christianity. From an outside perspective there is very little difference. I only brought up India to highlight that, just as there are many Christians who would disagree with their faith being nonsense, so would quite a few Hindus. Again, in eachother's eyes you're the same. Both making special claims to the absolute truth. With about as much evidence.

Again, sort of missing the point with Heaven's Gate. But whatever, fine, how about the Mormons? They were literally hunted by US authorities. Shia Muslims? Currently dying by the busload in the middle east. Both parties had the option to stop their oppression by converting but they didn't. Martyrdom is not unique to Christianity and it doesn't prove a fucking thing.

You were definitely attempting to hook Christianity into Ethics as a way of relating it to the humanities, whether you like it or not Ethics is Philosophy.

You're free to make the absurdly arrogant claim that secular scholars have no real understanding of Christianity. But the broader point I was making in that conversation was that /rel/ and Veeky Forums ought to be separated because fruitful discussion isn't had between the two approaches. Because one has a standard for evidence and the other accepts things on faith. Feel free to think whatever you want about how real scholars do their jobs, at the very least I think you could agree that it would be rude to intrude on their territory.

> From an outside perspective there is very little difference.

But that's exactly the point that I'm making with everything else.

How can any of your statements have any logical foundation if you have not even taken time to personally investigate them? Because, if that's your position, you're merely regurgitating that which others have said and taking it on FAITH that they're telling the truth.

This is why I stress that you should actually look more into it.

>Martyrdom is not unique to Christianity and it doesn't prove a fucking thing.

Martyrdom is a facet of it. If we looked into every facet of every religion and were to determine which one has done the most humanitarian, or has been the most civilizing force, then it's by far Christianity.

But those are all secular nonsense. If you look into the why, it's very well evident within Christianity.

>You were definitely attempting to hook Christianity into Ethics as a way of relating it to the humanities, whether you like it or not Ethics is Philosophy.

Christianity as a whole dealt with ethics and is much older than any philosophy on ethics themselves.

>Because one has a standard for evidence and the other accepts things on faith.

It's one thing to claim the other side has no evidence. It's another to ignore the tool used to examine the evidence.

If you told me there was something outside my door, and at every point I refuse to open the door and look, and then proceed to say you have no evidence, you'd be having the same argument as I have now.

But, even then, when we have the history of Jesus, and of eyewitness accounts of Him and His resurrection, who reiterate exactly what we've known for the longest time.

When faced with things like that, the secular proceeds to ignore the accounts and their explanations, and write it off as supernatural.

I'm not claiming Astrology is true. Frankly I'm not sure what you're disputing at this point. I have investigated both and I find both equally wanting. That was my point. Astrology is not so different from Christianity.

>...then it's by far Christianity.
Irrelevant to the truth of its supernatural claims. Many religions can claim positive deeds under their influence.

> If you look into the why, it's very well evident within Christianity.
Oh, do tell.

Christianity can be wholly separated from Ethics was my point.

>and is much older than any philosophy on ethics themselves.

But do you actually believe this? Fucking hell man.

Don't act like faith is another method of investigation. It bypasses investigation completely by accepting the premise without evidence. That's faith, it's not fitting for a secular university. Call it all you want, call it the method of fools and charlatans and sorcerers or whatever. But that's not how knowledge is gained, at least not by a current definition of knowledge.

Perhaps it isn't "spiritual knowledge" but I've seen little reason to care.

>But, even then, when we have the history of Jesus, and of eyewitness accounts of Him and His resurrection

Very very debatable. This is beyond the purview of the this thread but if you were being intellectual honest you would know that this is hardly a given within new testament scholarship. Perhaps you'd ignore that because it doesn't make use of faith?

> I have investigated both and I find both equally wanting.

And I'm stating that your investigation is flawed.

>Irrelevant to the truth of its supernatural claims.

Eyewitness accounts.

>Oh, do tell.

There is no other resounding ideal that dictates to give goodness, even double, unto those who would do evil to you. It's not a simple "be good to those around you" that you might find in false religions, rather it goes further and provides an ethical and true compass of what to do even when faced with the utmost adversity.

If you look further into the historical context, in periods of time when it was much easier to either be in war, or generally being ill towards another man with no consequence, against this is one of the tenements of Christianity.

Romans would've went to war. Muslims would've went to war. Even the far East was in war. Christians went faithfully into their death.

That is the pinnacle of self-sacrifice and is the very foundation of the teachings of Christ.

>Christianity can be wholly separated from Ethics was my point.

Except you're living in time where nearly all of the ethics today has been shaped by Christianity.

Kind of like saying you're going to have a new field of physics without any math involved.

>But do you actually believe this? Fucking hell man.

It's the truth.

>It bypasses investigation completely by accepting the premise without evidence.

Except for the fact that it doesn't.

If you're truly knowledgable of the Bible, you'd realize that nearly all instances of this faith has been describing it to people that didn't have it.

Because, that's what it appears from the outside looking in. From the inside looking out, it's very different. This is the same for any form of wordly knowledge.

Do you think Jesus didn't know what was to happen to Him? All the hints and parables he dropped about His death, do you think He didn't already know what His fate would be?

But, He knew it.

>new testament scholarship.

Prove it.

>And I'm stating that your investigation is flawed.
Well you don't really have good reason to say this so I don't give a shit.

>Eyewitness accounts.
We'll touch on this in a sec

>There is no other resounding ideal that dictates to give goodness....
This is a bunch of sentiment. You like your religion, cool. But this is hardly convincing material.

I don't even know what the fuck you're trying to say here about war. That Christians fought for radically different reasons than the rest of humanity? Laughably naive.

>Except you're living in time where nearly all of the ethics today has been shaped by Christianity.

Somewhat true, modern systems of ethics have had to respond to Christianity but utilitarian ideas are very far removed from Christianity. It's not as if you cannot do philosophy without its influence.

>like saying you're going to have a new field of physics without any math involved.
No, completely stupid. Physics requires math, Ethics does not require Christianity as I'll address with...

>It's the truth.
This retarded statement. No it fucking isn't. What do you think the Greeks were doing before Christianity? Was Epicurus not doing ethics? Did Plato not have any views on ethics? This is just plainly wrong, I'm shocked you would say something so stupid.

>Except for the fact that it doesn't.
So here's the problem with saying that faith = evidence. By having faith, you accept the conclusion, thereby rendering the "investigation" over. If I say you cannot truly understand Astrology without accepting it as fact you would rightfully call me out for being circular. This is what you're doing.

>Prove it.
Basic scholarship here. Just google Jesus as historical figure to find out what we can be sure to know, it's not much.

Oh, I misunderstood your question.

When the Antichrist rules the world and demands that everyone worship him as a God, and receive his mark on/in your right hand, that will be your ID and all of your financial information. It will also be as a sign of loyalty to the NWO, the Antichrist's kingdom.

If you do not take the mark of the beast, you'll likely be killed on the spot. So you'll want to make a quick confession out loud that Jesus is Lord, believing in your heart God raised him from the dead, before the headchoppers get to you.

If you do take the mark of the beast, and declare your allegiance to the Son of Perdition, to satan incarnate, you will go to hell. No ifs, ands, or buts. No second chances.

There are only two sides in this spiritual war, and you must opt out of satan's side or be damned.

The stars used to tell the story of creation. The Chaldeans bastardized it and in its current state it is useless.

Everything is light. Everything is fields, and fields are not particles.

Everything is light.

Out Out Out! There is nothing history related in this post

>good reason

I've already stated.

>This is a bunch of sentiment.

It's the truth. Everywhere else, you see attack your enemies, yet in Christianity you see love your enemies.

There has only been one arguable instance of Christians going to war and that was the Crusades.

> modern systems of ethics have had to respond to Christianity

And now you've glossed over all those churches from 200 AD to about the 1950's rise in secularism. I don't think that's wise.

>Physics requires math, Ethics does not require Christianity as I'll address with...

Except nearly all ethics in the Western World has been established from the older Christian Ideals set by Christ.

This is what I mean when I bring that up. Nearly all physics is based upon and influenced by math. To suddenly up and say, "now we're going to do physics without it" is the same vein.

>What do you think the Greeks were doing before Christianity?

Pagans?

>Epicurus

Hedonism and nihilism.

>Plato

Mostly dealt with knowledge.

This isn't ethics. Ethics is how you treat your fellow man and the reason why.

Epicurus was more concerned with doing what was pleasurable.

Christianity espouses the idea of sacrificing of yourself, experiencing more pain so that someone else may feel more pleasure.

None of these philosophers have ever had to deal with what Christ dealt with nor were put to the test with an agonizing death.

> faith = evidence

No, you misunderstand. It is through faith that these truths are self-evident.

This pertains as to what faith is. If I said swim, there's many facets to swimming. Simply treading water, holding your breath, doing backstroke, etc.

The same is true for faith. Fasting, prayer, meditations upon the teachings of the Bible, loving Christ, God, and the Commandments are all of these.

But, most important of these, is concerning God. Paul said it true in Hebrews 11.

> it's not much.
Google it? Because anything against the Bible can be said of anything else.

All you've said is that you think I didn't investigate thoroughly enough, so whatever. We'll agree to disagree.

>There has only been one arguable instance of Christians going to war
Did you forget the religious wars within Europe? That's not even touching on the wars that weren't inherently religiously motivated. But that's still Christians going to war.

>200 AD to about the 1950's rise in secularism
Hoo boy, if you think philosophy started to distance itself from Christianity in the 50's you're not very well read on the topic.

As for Ethics, it does not rest foundationally on Christianity. You can do ethics without invoking any part of it. I brought up Utilitarian Ethics before but it's worth repeating. The idea of doing good things due to good consequences, not due to God's will, not due to eternal rewards and punishments, is quite a bit different. They are separate.

>Hedonism and nihilism.
Ridiculously reductionist. Epicurus did talk about ethics, mostly that pleasure was good and the repercussions of that thinking. Plato also speculated on what actions could be considered virtuous and what men.

The Greeks did ethics, it's older than Christianity. To say otherwise is to stick your head in the sand.

>No, you misunderstand. It is through faith that these truths are self-evident.
I think that's exactly what I said. Who woulda thought that accepting something as completely true makes it seem completely true. This is circular reasoning. To see the reasoning for christianity you have to accept it as true without reasoning. Wowee

I really don't want to get into the historicity debate because it's a huge debate with lots of prominent scholars. People like James Dunn and Bart Ehrman will generally only consent to two things: Jesus was born and he was baptized by John. The rest is hotly contested.

>None of these philosophers have ever had to deal with what Christ dealt with nor were put to the test with an agonizing death.

Also, what's the relevance here? Yeah they never dealt with Jesus which was exactly my point. They were doing ethics before he was born.

It's also quite unfortunate of you to bring up the put to death part since Socrates was literally put to death for being a philosopher. Hemlock may not be fingernail torture, but it's a shitty way to go. But again, I'm not seeing the relevance.

It seems as if you think that people being killed for their beliefs lends veracity to their beliefs rather than their level of dedication or fanaticism.