so what do u believe happens after death? do u think this life is the only thing that matters? do u not believe there is a place where wrong doesnt exist? i do not c myself as a christian although i was raised (and am still) in the Christian church under my parents. but i do beleive in self righteousness or the thought that you yourself can be a good person and that you dont need a church or a preist to tell u how to live yr life.
I feel exactly the same way as the narrator of this video. Christianity DOES devalue humanity, it turns people into mindless sheep, it impedes progress, it doesn't allow humans to think for themselves, it represses the search for knowledge. I am proud to be an atheist.
"You do not deserve to be punished for something your distant ancestor did." Or for not doing something you are constitutionally incapable of doing, like believe the Christian fairytale. Excellent analysis.
Your video is manipulative, presumptuous, narcissistic, and you need to slow down man!! The essence of Christianity that offends people is that Jesus raised himself from the dead.. an impossible task and a fact of history, just ask any historian. The event passes all tests for authenticity.
@TheFRiNgEguitars What test for authenticity does the resurrection of the Nazerene pass. Eyewitness accounts? No. All accounts are at best 2nd hand. Post event evidence? No. No physical evidence was left behind. Repeatability? No. According to the proposition the resurrection has only occurred once. The Biblical accounts of the resurrection were not written until ~40 yrs after the event. They are not reliable. Pls tell me what test for authenticity the event does pass.
@drfoxcourt Bingo. It's no different than saying that my buddy did the same thing a couple of years ago, and therefore he's the messiah. Not only that, but the resurrection isn't one of the requirements laid out in scripture for identifying the messiah. It's utterly irrelevant, and not without precedent in the ancient world.
@TheFRiNgEguitars Your comment is manipulative, presumptuous, narcissistic, and you need to slow down man! The essence of Christianity that offends people is the fairy tale that Jesus raised himself from the dead, an impossible task and a myth of history, just ask any historian. The event fails all tests for authenticity.
Your inability to understand theological and philosophical concepts and your raping of logic are truly quite baffling. Aside from stating false dichotomies based on hideous misreprentations of Christianity, all I saw was an appeal to emotion, as well as several bare assertions fallacies and special pleading.
@Randomicity912 I saw an appeal to reason. You're projecting. Christianity is nothing more than an appeal to emotion. Fear. "Fear death, come to us to avoid it."
Now. Your baseless assertions. Care to explain how my conception of christianity is wrong?
@geminyo False. Seeing as how Christianity developed in a day and age (1st Century Judea to be exact) where threats of hell would be meaningless, and would most likely cause somebody to laugh in your face, your accusation of an appeal to fear is quite absurd. That may be the practice amongst certain fundamentalist groups today however, but it is a marginal one.
@Randomicity912 Certain fundamentalist groups? Do you live in a cave? Do you mean to tell me that the major sticking point for all catholics, baptists, mormons, and countless splinter groups from them... you mean to tell me that their members don't believe that the only thing keeping them out of hell is obedience to their religious leaders?
@geminyo No, I happen to live in a part of the world not dominated by fundamentalist idiots. Fun fact: USA =/= the entire planet. But anyway, just to clarify my meaning, the majority of Christians do NOT try and embed fear into people. Threat by hell is only used by fundamentalists, sorry. Also "countless splinter groups"? There are only three: Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestants. Groups such as "Baptists" et al. are, in actual fact, part of Protestantism. Also, Mormonism isn't Christianity.
@Randomicity912 "No, I happen to live in a part of the world not dominated by fundamentalist idiots."
Sorry to but in but on that note, I was handed a pamphlet by a Christian in a mall in Brisbane, Australia last week which DID threaten me with hell if I did not convert.
Fundamentalists may not be the majority in most western countries (thank their God), but they do exist, and even the more moderate Christians do share the belief that hell awaits those who do not accept their religion.
@Pinage I know, fundies exist, they just happen to not constitute the majority of Christians in the UK. Still, the conception of hell as fiery pit of torment is a later development.
@Randomicity912 As I recall, the bible doesn't actually say much about hell, and the Old Testament doesn't say anything on the subject.
The eternal torture concept originated in the dark/middle ages. The modern liberal view is that of hell as a separation from God rather than a punishment.
@Pinage That is correct. The modern view is in line with the original view in that regard. I would also avoid using the term 'Dark Ages', as Historians no longer use the term. The Dark Ages just weren't as Dark as people previously believed them to be.
@Randomicity912 By today's comparison, they were still pretty dark. It's certainly not a period I would wish to live in. What do historians now call it if not the dark ages?
@Randomicity912 ve actually been making notes on the Old Testament, including the development of the concept of the afterlife. Initially, the Israelites believed in a reward of long life and prosperity, and a punishment of literal death. They gradually adopted the Greek concept of the underworld, and there are many references to a "pit", fire, and suffering in the OT alone.
@Randomicity912 Regardless, it doesn't matter what the original understanding in Christianity was; Christianity doesn't resemble its original form in any way. I'm talking about its current incarnation and how modern Christians treat humanity.
As for the "Dark Ages", that term refers specifically to the period following the fall of the Roman Empire, usually up to the founding of Charlemagne's empire, when there were no real states, and even less literacy.
@diagoras54 Then you have failed. The "current incarnation" has moved back towards the original. Only die-hard fundies who know nothing about Christianity still cling to such notions as fiery torment in hell, etc.
@Randomicity912 The vast majority of Christians I've ever met, on the order of 99%, from all denominations, believe in hell, and that non-believers are going there. Do you honestly think that all the disparate denominations, which already have idealogical differences, are suddenly working together to go back to an "original" belief in the afterlife?
@diagoras54 Where did I ever deny the existence of Hell? That's right, never. I would suggest you try and find where I did, but you would probably go blind. Also, "all the denominations"? There are only three: Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism, and they are doing a good job of moving back towards the original views of the Church without ecumenicism.
@Randomicity912 "Still, the conception of hell as fiery pit of torment is a later development." Where did I ever say that you deny the existence of hell? That's right, never. I would suggest you try to find where I did, but you would probably go blind. I've been talking about hell as a fiery pit of torment the entire time. And do you honestly think all the different branches of Protestantism would ever work together? Are the Baptists likely to agree with the Anglicans?
@diagoras54 Are you daft?! The different branches of Protestantism DO work together. I take it you have never been to the UK, or a part of the USA not dominated by backward fundies. My local pentecostal church meet in the local Methodist church building. There are 'Churches together' meetings all the time. I think you will find that these groups differ in small ways. Sometimes the differences are miniscule.
@Randomicity912 If they agree on principles of theology, why are they different denominations? Also, if you were intelligent enough to actually look at my channel, you'll find that I'm from Canada, and I've travelled extensively, including to the UK. I'm familiar with "Churches together" meetings, which usually have to do with maintaining congregations and holding picnics, not altering their theology. Just because churches work together doesn't mean they change their core beliefs together.
@Randomicity912 And there are several independent branches of "eastern" churches, including Russian and Greek Orthodox and Coptic churches, none of which follow a common leader.
@diagoras54 I think you'll find that they do. Jesus. I know you meant a human leader, vis a vis the Pope, but that point is as equally pointless as everything else you have said. The three major branches all agree on the core issues, and all the denominations of these groups do too. They only differe in areas of theological insignificance.
@Randomicity912 I haven't found a single denomination of any significant size that doesn't believe that hell is a physical place of eternal punishment. Since you refuse to consider that other Christians have different opinions from you, here are some quotes from Jesus himself: "Instead, fear the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell". "But I will warn you whom you should fear: Fear the one who, after the killing, has authority to throw you into hell."
@Randomicity912 "It is better to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell." "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off! It is better for you to enter into life crippled than to have two hands and go into hell, to the unquenchable fire." Unquenchable fire isn't separation from god; it's fire, literally.
@Randomicity912 This is just you projecting your personal desire for cosmic justice not to include those who rightfully shouldn't be punished. But that's not Christianity. From at least Isaiah on, the Bible says that non-believers will be physically punished by god, and gentiles will be made the slaves of the Jews. You're re-interpreting the original beliefs because you don't like how they fit your perception of a benevolent god.
@diagoras54 This is also wrong. It is a logical non-sequitur, in that cosmic justice only includes those who should be rightfully punished. You are just trying to redefine what is rightfully punishable. It is also a Straw Man, in that I never said there was no hell, just that Hell was not a fiery pit of torment. Just because you are theologically and historically illiterate does not mean others are.
@Randomicity912 No, this isn't a non-sequitur. I'm exceedingly familiar with the Bible - I guarantee far moreso than you - and I know precisely how the concept developed. The Jews believed in an underworld centuries before Jesus lived, and they believed it was a place of physical punishment two or three centuries before him. But punishment was reserved for non-Jews, regardless of how good they were, and that concept passed into Christianity.
@diagoras54 I find that claim, as with most, if not all, of what you have said, highly doubtful. The Jews believed that wicked souls went to Gehenna, where they would either be purified and sent on to Olam Ha-Ba, or destroyed if their were exceedingly wicked. Still, if Jews believe that only Jews will get to the afterlife, why is that they believed and still do believe that the entire world will acknowledge the one-true God and that the Mashiach (Messiah) will attract people from all cultures?
@Randomicity912 Because they believe that the messiah is a political and religious leader who will make Israel the most powerful nation on Earth. The Jewish concept of a messiah is entirely different from that of Christians, which you would know if you'd actually read the Bible; a descendant of David will be made king, literally, in the Earthly, political sense, and physically conquer the world. It's not a spiritual concept.
@Randomicity912 Quite simply, you don't like the notion that god would punish those who could never have believed in him, because it doesn't fit with your current interpretation of how god should act, so you alter the texts in your mind. You make the punishment to be "separation from god", which isn't really that bad, and isn't any different than making up the concept of limbo for unbaptized babies. That's not whay the Bible says.
@diagoras54 Quite simply, you are using a definition of the afterlife that is found nowhere in the Tanakh or Talmudic texts, nor the Christian Bible, nor the Jewish or Christian Apocryphal works, nor the inter-testamental books. Now, I previously offered to further expound upon the intricacies of this matter via PM (since 500 word limit comments hardly do the job), but it seem as if you are not interested in debate but, rather, in pushing your view as the only acceptable view. Tu quoque indeed.
@Randomicity912 I have no interest in your personal opinions, so a PM is a waste of both our time; the only reason I'm responding to you is to show other readers that these issues have been addressed, and Christians don't have ultimate, unquestioned authority. The Bible doesn't define anything, but what it does say, from the end of Kings onward, is that people who break god's law, including worshipers of other gods in societies not chosen by god, will be sent to "the pit".
@diagoras54 I'm sorry but historical facts are not personal opinions. Your monumental historic and theological illiteracy is only matched by your flagrant disregard of logic and reason. Still, it is very telling how quick you were to resort to namecalling. I dealt with your patronising attitude very calmly, yet all you can do is call me names and make bare assertions, as well as an array of other logical fallacies.
@Randomicity912 No, I've provided you with facts, which you've either dismissed, ignored, or tried to change to match your beliefs on what Christianity should be. I have no tolerance for imbeciles coming on my videos and telling me that I'm wrong without providing a single piece of evidence, trying to change history, and endorsing war against an entire group of people. I only started insulting you once I realized that you won't listen to any opinion but your own. If you don't like it, leave.
@diagoras54 No, all you have done is made claims that do not correspond to anything from World History. You have made a plethroa of logical fallacies and simply asserted your personal opinions as absolute fact with zero supporting evidence whatsoever. You are insulting me because I am deconstructing your quixotic self-delusions. Either way, if you actually wanted evidence, you would have asked for it (instead of ranting on like a reatrd), which I, of course, shall be glad to provide.
@Randomicity912 And yet, you have just as frequently insulted me. I have been extremely patient and tolerant letting you continue to do so; coming on my channel and throwing your unsolicited opinion in my face is no different than if I were to force my way into your house and tell you that you're a moron. You haven't provided a single original argument, only poor, tired ones other Christians have already tried on me, and you're starting to annoy me.
@diagoras54 Yeah, because you were insulting me. Don't start what you can't handle twinkletits. Once again, historical fact is not "unsolicited opinion" and the reason why these "arguments" are "unoriginal" are because they happen to be true. Have you never studied History? Go to any university and try presenting the crap you have been spouting and you will be laughed at. And yes, I can imagine that the truth does annoy you, becuase it squarely contradicts your inane bullshit.
@Randomicity912 If you persist, I will block you, not because you're breaking down my "quixotic self-delusions", but because I'm tired of repeating myself to someone who lacks the intelligence to adopt new ideas. And I must say, the irony in misspelling "reatrd" is simply delicious. Idiot.
@diagoras54 I don't want to adopt new ideas when they are patently false. I have cited evidence, sent to you via PM, and in the comment section, now. So now there is no excuse for your monumental ignorance. But go ahead, block me. Afterall that is how atheism works when atheists are awarded any position of power. Brutal suppression of ideas different than their own on a scale that dwarfens even the worst crimes of religion. Oh, and typogrpahical error is different from a mispelling, dumbass.
@diagoras54 As for the "Dark Ages", the reason learning collapsed is because the brutal military despotism of the Roman Empire, that could support a tiny cultured elite by exploiting the vast proportion of the population, was destroyed by invasions of Germanic people. For Greeks and Romans, learning was for the leisured upper classes and, once they were overthrown, learning disappeared except in the church, which preserved it. For this we should all be extremely grateful.
@Randomicity912 Yes, universal literacy is a modern phenomenon, but it was that "tiny cultured elite" that had the ability and the knowledge to develop philosophical, scientific and engineering marvels. The Church did away with any idea it felt contradicted its theology, including banning ideas that are right and enforcing ones that are wrong, such as geocentrism. I don't have a problem with them endorsing an incorrect theory, but I do take issue with them forcibly making it mandatory.
@diagoras54 That is also wrong. The Church did not go around "banning" ideas that "conflicted with its Theology". For example, Heliocentrism. The Church did nothing to prevent the works of Nicolaus Copernicus being published. In fact, Galileo Galilei recieved Papal approval... until he insulted the Pope quite badly in one of his books. Galileo's enemies then used this oppurtunity to press Geocentrism, which was held by the scientific consensus at the time, onto the Papacy.
@Randomicity912 So the Catholic Church never burned any books or their authors because they disagreed with standard dogma? Cardinal Bellarmine ordered Galileo not to teach heliocentrism, and Copernican theory was placed on the list of banned books. Or does that not count as banning an idea? This isn't just the case for science; they killed plenty of people with dissenting religious ideas, or did the Cathars carry out the Albigensian Crusade on themselves?
@diagoras54 Copernicus' work was placed on the banned book... in Galileo's time. Before that, it was not. The whole reason heliocentrism was banned, was because Galileo refused to correct his poor argumentation (his works also supported the Tychonic view that the Earth did not move whilst everything else circled around the sun) and personally insulted all of his patrons, including the Pope. The Geocentrists used this to opportunity to promote their view. Unfortunately for science they succeeded.
@Randomicity912 No, this is just another example of Christians trying to rewrite history to make it seem as though they weren't an enormous detriment to society. The evidence is "reexamined" and "reinterpreted" until it whitewashes Christianity. Unfortunately for you, the Ptolemaic model was adopted as the official Catholic system in the 4th Century because it supported scripture, and was maintained in that position on orders from the pope.
@diagoras54 Ah, more historic revisionism. The Ptolemaic system was not supported because it "supported scripture", but because it was held by the scientific consensus, and Galileo did a piss poor job of trying to persuade the Pope that his theory was correct. Either way, if the Bible supports geocentrism and a flat earth, why is that Augustine, and many other Christian writers of the 5th century (and before) take the position that the Bible did not support either? You should do some studying.
@Randomicity912 I don't care why the pope endorsed it, and, more importantly, made it mandatory, if Christianity is supposed to have a monopoly on truth. With regards to Augustine, you're flat-out wrong: Augustine was a staunch supporter of geocentrism, as you can see from this quote - "For perhaps the world keeps its central place by the same law that attracts to its center all heavy bodies". He also believed in a young Earth, which is wrong, so what does it matter what his opinion was?
@diagoras54 Evidence? It's basic history. Have you seriously never read The Literal Meaning of Genesis by Augustine of Hippo? I shall PM you some quotes from it (comment length and all).
@Randomicity912 No, I only happened to post a quote from it above. I also have portion of it open in front of me with passages underlined that endorse geocentrism. The quote you sent doesn't actually say anything about the position of the Earth within the universe, whereas numerous other quotes from his work endorse the sun as revolving around the Earth. You're reinterpreting his writing to force your beliefs into it, when clearly that's not what he says.
@diagoras54 In other words, you are a moron who would rather prefer to remain intoxicated in his myths than change his mind in the face of evidence. Your inability to comprehend even basic English is truly quite staggering. Pardon me for using facts, reason and logic.
@Randomicity912 Regardless of the reason, there is no excuse for banning an idea, any idea, just because you're in a position of authority and don't like what someone has to say. There is no excuse for Christian suppression of any idea, including heliocentrism, evolution, or liberal morals.
@diagoras54 Are you a moron, or are you just completely incapabe of understanding what other people are saying? Heliocentrism was surpressed because Galileo's argumentation was poor and he refused to expound on them. It is not the Church's fault that Galileo was a pompous ass who was unable to take criticim.
@Randomicity912 This again? I can't believe how many Christians have tried the "He didn't have enough evidence" line on me. Take a telescope or a pair of binoculars. Point it at Jupiter. Look at the moons that are revolving around it, and not the Earth. IT'S RIGHT THERE! And again, you idiot, how can you justify the suppression of his ideas based on that? What if Pasteur hadn't had sufficient evidence and the Church banned germ theory because of it? He was still correct.
@diagoras54 By the way, the Cathars were dangerous, because they were actively trying to undermine the local authorities. They were a threat to society. Also, I will think you find that the Inqusitions excuted fewer people annually than the State of Texas. The Inqusitions were largely inneffectual, and resulted in about 9 deaths per year and only had jurisdiction against Christian heretics. Do you want to try again?
@Randomicity912 The Cathars included the nobles, i.e. the local authorities, or were supported by them, including Raymond VI of Toulouse, so I don't know how you can think they were undermining themselves. The Catholics had a great deal of difficulty trying to convert them because of the resistance of local authorities. Yet another instance of Christians attempting to whitewash their black history.
@Randomicity912 So nothing is ever allowed to change? "Social order" has to remain static? Perhaps you'd still like to be a serf, and Indians should maintains castes. You have to be one of the most closed-minded bigots I've ever encountered if you believe that minorities should submit to majority rule.
@diagoras54 Not neccessarily, but in this case, yes, seeing as Catharism was a dangerous heretical sect. I have no problem against minorities, just dangerous ones. Unless you would like for the BNP to take control of Britain, or for Muslims shoudl take control of Europe? I'm a close-minded bigot? This, coming from the guy who believes murderers and criminals should not be held accountable for their crimes? Oh, the irony.
@Randomicity912 At what point did I say criminals shouldn't be punished? And you accuse me of creating straw men? Cathars were dangerous and heretical in your opinion, but I'm quite certain they didn't spend every day plotting the downfall of Western civilization. They were just another religious group, like the Mormons, that didn't adhere to traditional Christian dogma; is that reason enough to massacre them and their children? Even if some were dangerous, you can't blame them all.
@Randomicity912 In any case, how can you support all-out war against an entire people? It's essentially genocide. Although I'm sure you're one of those who believes the Israelites just had to kill every man, woman and child they encountered in Canaan; it was justified after all. As for the Inquisition, it was more like 80 per year, and again, I don't see how you can justify the torture and murder of a single person. Christianity has blood on its hands, by anyone's calculations.
@diagoras54 Your historic illitericism is even greater than I first thought. The Cathars were a sect, not a race people moron. Are you honestly this stupid? Either way, the Catholic Church tried to make peace with the Cathars. They didn't work, do you know why? Because the Cathars had the Papal legate, Pierre de Castelnau, assassinated. I suspect you are one of those who thinks we should let terrorists just walk all over us.
@Randomicity912 It's ironic that you call me illiterate when you can't even read what I wrote: "essentially genocide". Note the qualifier. The Cathars lived in a particular region, forming almost the entire population, and France at the time was formed of many disparate ethnicities; the Cathars were, ESSENTIALLY, a unique ethnicity. And do you actually advocate killing the entire populace, including women and children, just because one agent of the pope was murdered?
@diagoras54 Not just one agent of the Pope, although that was the final straw that ignited the whole Albigensian crusade. And they were not ONE people group. It started in the Langeodoc region, in the 11th century, but it spread across other regions in the South of France through the 12th and 13th centuries. Still, I like how you are suggesting that you should just allow murderers get off scot free. Maybe that is why you find the idea of hell so frustrating?
@Randomicity912 No, I think murders should be punished accordingly, not that their families, friends, neighbours and business associates should be killed too. There is no justification for trying to exterminate an entire group of people; do you think their children were culpable as well? You, quite simply, are out of your mind, and a prime example of why Christian apologists are a danger to our society. You can't whitewash your history and pretend Christians weren't brutal killers.
@Randomicity912 No matter that the legate was assassinated by Raymond VI, who was a supporter of the Cathars, but not one of them. Are you actually excusing an entire crusade on the murder of one man? Why not justify the Holocaust by saying that some Jewish murderers were killed? You are an imbecile and completely out of your mind. I don't advocate murder, but nor would I be a fan of people actively trying to convert me to their religion.
@diagoras54 Also, the Israelities did not kill every man, woman and child in Canaan. Then again, if you had read the Bible, I am sure that you would have known that. However, it is funny you say Christianity has blood on its hands, seeing as how atheist regimes have been directly responsible for the deaths of approximately 185,000,000 people in 100 years. The total deaths at the hands of Christianity? Less than 10% of that, over 1,600 years.
@Randomicity912 No, they didn't, but they were ordered to by god, and their failure to do so led to their downfall. They did, however, succeed against the Midianites, although they kept the virgins for sex slaves. It doesn't matter though; if you actually think carrying out a war of extirmination against any group of people is acceptable, you are insane and sick.
@diagoras54 Wrong, again, as usual. I also like how you keep misrepresenting not just what it says in the Bible, but what I am sayign. I guess it didn't matter that the Midianites et al. were vicious murdering bandit tribes who sacificed their children to idols. Your monumental ignorance, not just of the Bible, but the Ancient Near East as a whole is truly quite shocking.
@Randomicity912 No, it doesn't matter what they did. There's no reason to kill an entire group of people. Moses became angry because the Israelites didn't want to kill the non-virgin women and children, and forced them to murder almost everyone. There is no possible way you can argue that the entire Midian population, children included, were murderous bandits who deserved death. YOU ARE INSANE.
@Randomicity912 I've already addressed the issue of "atheist" regimes killing people; most importantly, they weren't motivated by their atheism, they were motivated by power, whereas Christian regimes killed for religion. There's also a huge difference in the technology available to kill people, and the fact that the population of Europe was so small that it would have been impossible to kill the same number of people.
@Randomicity912 No, I'm saying that if you actually look at the facts you'll find that the "death toll" includes those who died in famines and war, on top of those who were executed. The reason executions and imprisonments took place were to suppress political opposition, not because they didn't believe in god. Suppression of political opponents takes place, and always has, in every dictatorship, regardless of religion. Christian regimes, however, killed for religion in particular.
@diagoras54 80 per year? Really? You are honestly putting that forward. Then our discussion is over. You are so ignorant of world history that it talking to you regarding matters of history would be like talking to a creationist in matters regarding science.
@Randomicity912 Why, because it differs from your belief? You didn't provide a source, so I can just as easily say that you made it up. More importantly, HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY KILLING EVEN ONE PERSON?
@Randomicity912 I'm sure you're referring more to the Medieval period, which was better, but still horrendous by modern standards. There was an atrocious mortality rate due to famine, disease, war, natural disasters and religious persecution of anyone with a slightly different belief system, or even just people they didn't like. Apologists have tried to recharacterize it as a time of romance which wasn't really as bad as everyone remembers; it's true, literacy was more like 20% than 10.
@Randomicity912 Science was just slightly less backward than we originally thought, and technology hadn't devolved from its Roman origins as much as we believed. But that doesn't change the fact that the church taught that disease was a result of sin, banned medicine, and led to the deaths of a third of the people in Europe in one plague alone.
@Randomicity912 Wow. You couldn't have used more facts to back up that very substantive post. Justinian's Plague. When doctors couldn't solve it, the Church declared it to be caused by sin, and mandated confession and penance as a cure. That led directly to 1/3 of Europe's population dying from the Black Death. So what, exactly, is incorrect about that? Do you deny that 1/3 of the people in Europe died from the Black Death, or that Christians were directly responsible for the demise of medicine?
@diagoras54 Firstly, the Plague of Justian wasn't the Black Death, the Black Death was a specific pandemic that occurred in the 14th Century. The Black Death, in fact, was worse than the Plague of Justinian. As for your claim that the Church halted medicine, firstly, the Church was not even in a position to "mandate cures". Secondly, the reason people turned to prayer and monastic medicine was because the learned physicians of the day were unable to effect a cure. How is that the Churches fault?
@Randomicity912 Wow. You simply are an idiot. At what point did I say that Justinian's Plague was the Black Death? Try to find it; you'll probably go blind before you do. I said that Justinian's Plague led to the church declaring that disease is caused by sin; that was official doctrine for over a millenium. The official solution to disease during the Middle Ages was prayer, and when, centuries after the Plague of Justinian, people started dying from the Black Death, their solution was useless.
@diagoras54 I'm sorry, you started by talking about the Plague of Justinian, and then said how the Church's actions led to 1/3 of the European population dying during the Black Death. I simply assumed that you were a moron who was equating the two. Either way, what of the clergy who opened the first European Universities where dissection, chemistry and deep study of the human anatomy led to the medical revolution? What about Trotula of Solerno, the great female physician of the middle ages?
@Randomicity912 The universities were founded by the clergy, but it was centuries later, and not under their authority, that medical studies were carried out. Practical medicine consisted largely of bandaging wounds, amputating limbs, and using folk remedies such as herbs and even bleeding. The Church only preserved those texts it felt were in line with Christian theology, including those of Galen, which adhered to the theory of humours. They were entirely wrong.
@Randomicity912 Yes, Galen had a great deal of information on anatomy, but we don't know how many other texts were destroyed that may have had more accurate theories on disease. And Trotula's works were also based on humours and the fact that women are colder than men, and have to release excess nutrients through menstruation. Medical science only really began to expand in northern Europe after the Reformation, when there was no further fear of being burned for not adhering to Catholic dogma.
@Randomicity912 It's fascinating that when I back you into a corner you don't actually address my points, you just throw out incorrect logical fallacies. The only ignorance here is your own.
@Randomicity912 We're done. I'm not going to waste my time having a discussion with you about something completely unrelated. I haven't brought up the unity of the body and soul, or anything even remotely similar, and the fact that you want to change the topic rather than address my issues with how you're a war mongering psychopath indicates that you're dishonest and moronic. I have no further interest in discussing anything with you.
@diagoras54 Nice use of Wikipedia chump. Still, I like how you keep changing the subject to avoid my charge that you are a sententious, acrimonious, supercilious, pusillanimous, calumnious, censorious, vituperative, querulous, embittered, obsessive and bombastic moron who spouts nothing but intolerance and bigotry-laden arguments full of non-sequiturs, caricatures, straw men and vitriol. I also find it hilarious how you kept changing the subject, yet have the gall to say I am a subject changer.
@diagoras54 What about the translation, distribution, and study of the works of Galen that was carried out by the many monastic orders? Are you seriously blaming the Church for the Black Plague? If anything, it was the church, it's research and practices that was the only thing that kept much of Europe alive.
@diagoras54 Medicine and other professions declined because of two things: -
Barbarian hordes and the bubonic Plague that were both ravaging Europe. The plague allowed for Goths to gain a larger advantage over Constantinople, and also led to serious economic problems. As such, I do not think that the stupidity of the citizenry, the inability to find a medical cure for the plague as well invading armies and economy problems were the fault of the church.
@geminyo As for your last question, the answer is, quite obviously, no. The one thing "keeping them out of hell" is salvation, which is a lifelong process, not a single event. In Christian theolgy, salvation requires action (following Jesus' teaching) based on belief (in Jesus' Resurrection), although salvation is given, not earned. There are those who, falsely, give equal credence to their religious leaders, but we tend to dismiss these people.
@Randomicity912 Well, that's nice and all, but the point made still lies on the table... We are intrinsically 'flawed', without having done anything to cause that ourselves. We do not deserve to be treated with love and care, except for when we submit our entire lives to the one who made us flawed to begin with. Now, you can lecture me on original sin and all, but I still can't fathom the fact that so many people cannot see the beauty of the human being on its own, without any strings attached.
@McTrico No, not really. Human beings have free will. Humans inevetibly make mistakes, becuase they do what they want, which sometimes leads to bad things. You could argue "Why didn't God make us perfect to begin with?" but the simple answer is, it woud have reduced us to mindless automatons. It would be like programming an AI to only say things you agree with. It is better for us to learn through experience and choose to serve God on our own, rather than being pre-programmed robots.
@Randomicity912 Actually, yes. The Bible says that everyone is imperfect and has sinned; even if you followed all of the commandments, never harmed anyone, and were a wonderful person every day, you still need salvation through Jesus. Of course, god didn't have to make hell in the first place. He could have just put us in heaven: there was no need to test us first. He punishes everyone who doesn't follow his law, even if they lived in a time or place where they couldn't have known it.
@diagoras54 Okay, hopefully YouTube will let me reply to your comment this time. Is it okay if I reply via PM? I do not think that the comment section is the best place to discuss due to character limits and that the reply to your argument(s) would be quite lenghtly.
Oh there is Punishment for what an ancestor did. Some Ancestors believed Christianity and Look were we are now!!!! We gotta explain the obvious. HAHAHA. Excellent Video Man. Good Work.
so what do u believe happens after death? do u think this life is the only thing that matters? do u not believe there is a place where wrong doesnt exist? i do not c myself as a christian although i was raised (and am still) in the Christian church under my parents. but i do beleive in self righteousness or the thought that you yourself can be a good person and that you dont need a church or a preist to tell u how to live yr life.
Buonarr 2 months ago in playlist More videos from diagoras54
I feel exactly the same way as the narrator of this video. Christianity DOES devalue humanity, it turns people into mindless sheep, it impedes progress, it doesn't allow humans to think for themselves, it represses the search for knowledge. I am proud to be an atheist.
8698gil 4 months ago
nice work
PaulSmithFilms 7 months ago
"You do not deserve to be punished for something your distant ancestor did." Or for not doing something you are constitutionally incapable of doing, like believe the Christian fairytale. Excellent analysis.
Kailoa36 11 months ago
this is a fantastic video. you are a wordsmith.
aguteempasil 1 year ago
Your video is manipulative, presumptuous, narcissistic, and you need to slow down man!! The essence of Christianity that offends people is that Jesus raised himself from the dead.. an impossible task and a fact of history, just ask any historian. The event passes all tests for authenticity.
TheFRiNgEguitars 1 year ago
@TheFRiNgEguitars What test for authenticity does the resurrection of the Nazerene pass. Eyewitness accounts? No. All accounts are at best 2nd hand. Post event evidence? No. No physical evidence was left behind. Repeatability? No. According to the proposition the resurrection has only occurred once. The Biblical accounts of the resurrection were not written until ~40 yrs after the event. They are not reliable. Pls tell me what test for authenticity the event does pass.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
@drfoxcourt Bingo. It's no different than saying that my buddy did the same thing a couple of years ago, and therefore he's the messiah. Not only that, but the resurrection isn't one of the requirements laid out in scripture for identifying the messiah. It's utterly irrelevant, and not without precedent in the ancient world.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@TheFRiNgEguitars Your comment is manipulative, presumptuous, narcissistic, and you need to slow down man! The essence of Christianity that offends people is the fairy tale that Jesus raised himself from the dead, an impossible task and a myth of history, just ask any historian. The event fails all tests for authenticity.
Kailoa36 11 months ago
Brilliant video! Thank you!
June28July 1 year ago
You have it exactly right with the wife-beating syndrome. Have a look at Hosea and you can see it spelled out quite clearly.
HConstantine 1 year ago
Well put. I like the cut of your jib.
geminyo 1 year ago
Your inability to understand theological and philosophical concepts and your raping of logic are truly quite baffling. Aside from stating false dichotomies based on hideous misreprentations of Christianity, all I saw was an appeal to emotion, as well as several bare assertions fallacies and special pleading.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 I saw an appeal to reason. You're projecting. Christianity is nothing more than an appeal to emotion. Fear. "Fear death, come to us to avoid it."
Now. Your baseless assertions. Care to explain how my conception of christianity is wrong?
geminyo 1 year ago
@geminyo False. Seeing as how Christianity developed in a day and age (1st Century Judea to be exact) where threats of hell would be meaningless, and would most likely cause somebody to laugh in your face, your accusation of an appeal to fear is quite absurd. That may be the practice amongst certain fundamentalist groups today however, but it is a marginal one.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 Certain fundamentalist groups? Do you live in a cave? Do you mean to tell me that the major sticking point for all catholics, baptists, mormons, and countless splinter groups from them... you mean to tell me that their members don't believe that the only thing keeping them out of hell is obedience to their religious leaders?
geminyo 1 year ago
@geminyo No, I happen to live in a part of the world not dominated by fundamentalist idiots. Fun fact: USA =/= the entire planet. But anyway, just to clarify my meaning, the majority of Christians do NOT try and embed fear into people. Threat by hell is only used by fundamentalists, sorry. Also "countless splinter groups"? There are only three: Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestants. Groups such as "Baptists" et al. are, in actual fact, part of Protestantism. Also, Mormonism isn't Christianity.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 "No, I happen to live in a part of the world not dominated by fundamentalist idiots."
Sorry to but in but on that note, I was handed a pamphlet by a Christian in a mall in Brisbane, Australia last week which DID threaten me with hell if I did not convert.
Fundamentalists may not be the majority in most western countries (thank their God), but they do exist, and even the more moderate Christians do share the belief that hell awaits those who do not accept their religion.
Pinage 1 year ago
@Pinage I know, fundies exist, they just happen to not constitute the majority of Christians in the UK. Still, the conception of hell as fiery pit of torment is a later development.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 As I recall, the bible doesn't actually say much about hell, and the Old Testament doesn't say anything on the subject.
The eternal torture concept originated in the dark/middle ages. The modern liberal view is that of hell as a separation from God rather than a punishment.
Pinage 1 year ago
@Pinage That is correct. The modern view is in line with the original view in that regard. I would also avoid using the term 'Dark Ages', as Historians no longer use the term. The Dark Ages just weren't as Dark as people previously believed them to be.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 By today's comparison, they were still pretty dark. It's certainly not a period I would wish to live in. What do historians now call it if not the dark ages?
Pinage 1 year ago
@Pinage The early Middle Ages.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 ve actually been making notes on the Old Testament, including the development of the concept of the afterlife. Initially, the Israelites believed in a reward of long life and prosperity, and a punishment of literal death. They gradually adopted the Greek concept of the underworld, and there are many references to a "pit", fire, and suffering in the OT alone.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 Regardless, it doesn't matter what the original understanding in Christianity was; Christianity doesn't resemble its original form in any way. I'm talking about its current incarnation and how modern Christians treat humanity.
As for the "Dark Ages", that term refers specifically to the period following the fall of the Roman Empire, usually up to the founding of Charlemagne's empire, when there were no real states, and even less literacy.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Then you have failed. The "current incarnation" has moved back towards the original. Only die-hard fundies who know nothing about Christianity still cling to such notions as fiery torment in hell, etc.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 The vast majority of Christians I've ever met, on the order of 99%, from all denominations, believe in hell, and that non-believers are going there. Do you honestly think that all the disparate denominations, which already have idealogical differences, are suddenly working together to go back to an "original" belief in the afterlife?
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Where did I ever deny the existence of Hell? That's right, never. I would suggest you try and find where I did, but you would probably go blind. Also, "all the denominations"? There are only three: Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism, and they are doing a good job of moving back towards the original views of the Church without ecumenicism.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 "Still, the conception of hell as fiery pit of torment is a later development." Where did I ever say that you deny the existence of hell? That's right, never. I would suggest you try to find where I did, but you would probably go blind. I've been talking about hell as a fiery pit of torment the entire time. And do you honestly think all the different branches of Protestantism would ever work together? Are the Baptists likely to agree with the Anglicans?
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Are you daft?! The different branches of Protestantism DO work together. I take it you have never been to the UK, or a part of the USA not dominated by backward fundies. My local pentecostal church meet in the local Methodist church building. There are 'Churches together' meetings all the time. I think you will find that these groups differ in small ways. Sometimes the differences are miniscule.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 If they agree on principles of theology, why are they different denominations? Also, if you were intelligent enough to actually look at my channel, you'll find that I'm from Canada, and I've travelled extensively, including to the UK. I'm familiar with "Churches together" meetings, which usually have to do with maintaining congregations and holding picnics, not altering their theology. Just because churches work together doesn't mean they change their core beliefs together.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 And there are several independent branches of "eastern" churches, including Russian and Greek Orthodox and Coptic churches, none of which follow a common leader.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 I think you'll find that they do. Jesus. I know you meant a human leader, vis a vis the Pope, but that point is as equally pointless as everything else you have said. The three major branches all agree on the core issues, and all the denominations of these groups do too. They only differe in areas of theological insignificance.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 I haven't found a single denomination of any significant size that doesn't believe that hell is a physical place of eternal punishment. Since you refuse to consider that other Christians have different opinions from you, here are some quotes from Jesus himself: "Instead, fear the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell". "But I will warn you whom you should fear: Fear the one who, after the killing, has authority to throw you into hell."
diagoras54 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 "It is better to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell." "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off! It is better for you to enter into life crippled than to have two hands and go into hell, to the unquenchable fire." Unquenchable fire isn't separation from god; it's fire, literally.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 This is just you projecting your personal desire for cosmic justice not to include those who rightfully shouldn't be punished. But that's not Christianity. From at least Isaiah on, the Bible says that non-believers will be physically punished by god, and gentiles will be made the slaves of the Jews. You're re-interpreting the original beliefs because you don't like how they fit your perception of a benevolent god.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 This is also wrong. It is a logical non-sequitur, in that cosmic justice only includes those who should be rightfully punished. You are just trying to redefine what is rightfully punishable. It is also a Straw Man, in that I never said there was no hell, just that Hell was not a fiery pit of torment. Just because you are theologically and historically illiterate does not mean others are.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 No, this isn't a non-sequitur. I'm exceedingly familiar with the Bible - I guarantee far moreso than you - and I know precisely how the concept developed. The Jews believed in an underworld centuries before Jesus lived, and they believed it was a place of physical punishment two or three centuries before him. But punishment was reserved for non-Jews, regardless of how good they were, and that concept passed into Christianity.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 I find that claim, as with most, if not all, of what you have said, highly doubtful. The Jews believed that wicked souls went to Gehenna, where they would either be purified and sent on to Olam Ha-Ba, or destroyed if their were exceedingly wicked. Still, if Jews believe that only Jews will get to the afterlife, why is that they believed and still do believe that the entire world will acknowledge the one-true God and that the Mashiach (Messiah) will attract people from all cultures?
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 Because they believe that the messiah is a political and religious leader who will make Israel the most powerful nation on Earth. The Jewish concept of a messiah is entirely different from that of Christians, which you would know if you'd actually read the Bible; a descendant of David will be made king, literally, in the Earthly, political sense, and physically conquer the world. It's not a spiritual concept.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 Quite simply, you don't like the notion that god would punish those who could never have believed in him, because it doesn't fit with your current interpretation of how god should act, so you alter the texts in your mind. You make the punishment to be "separation from god", which isn't really that bad, and isn't any different than making up the concept of limbo for unbaptized babies. That's not whay the Bible says.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Quite simply, you are using a definition of the afterlife that is found nowhere in the Tanakh or Talmudic texts, nor the Christian Bible, nor the Jewish or Christian Apocryphal works, nor the inter-testamental books. Now, I previously offered to further expound upon the intricacies of this matter via PM (since 500 word limit comments hardly do the job), but it seem as if you are not interested in debate but, rather, in pushing your view as the only acceptable view. Tu quoque indeed.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 I have no interest in your personal opinions, so a PM is a waste of both our time; the only reason I'm responding to you is to show other readers that these issues have been addressed, and Christians don't have ultimate, unquestioned authority. The Bible doesn't define anything, but what it does say, from the end of Kings onward, is that people who break god's law, including worshipers of other gods in societies not chosen by god, will be sent to "the pit".
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 I'm sorry but historical facts are not personal opinions. Your monumental historic and theological illiteracy is only matched by your flagrant disregard of logic and reason. Still, it is very telling how quick you were to resort to namecalling. I dealt with your patronising attitude very calmly, yet all you can do is call me names and make bare assertions, as well as an array of other logical fallacies.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 No, I've provided you with facts, which you've either dismissed, ignored, or tried to change to match your beliefs on what Christianity should be. I have no tolerance for imbeciles coming on my videos and telling me that I'm wrong without providing a single piece of evidence, trying to change history, and endorsing war against an entire group of people. I only started insulting you once I realized that you won't listen to any opinion but your own. If you don't like it, leave.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 No, all you have done is made claims that do not correspond to anything from World History. You have made a plethroa of logical fallacies and simply asserted your personal opinions as absolute fact with zero supporting evidence whatsoever. You are insulting me because I am deconstructing your quixotic self-delusions. Either way, if you actually wanted evidence, you would have asked for it (instead of ranting on like a reatrd), which I, of course, shall be glad to provide.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 And yet, you have just as frequently insulted me. I have been extremely patient and tolerant letting you continue to do so; coming on my channel and throwing your unsolicited opinion in my face is no different than if I were to force my way into your house and tell you that you're a moron. You haven't provided a single original argument, only poor, tired ones other Christians have already tried on me, and you're starting to annoy me.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Yeah, because you were insulting me. Don't start what you can't handle twinkletits. Once again, historical fact is not "unsolicited opinion" and the reason why these "arguments" are "unoriginal" are because they happen to be true. Have you never studied History? Go to any university and try presenting the crap you have been spouting and you will be laughed at. And yes, I can imagine that the truth does annoy you, becuase it squarely contradicts your inane bullshit.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 If you persist, I will block you, not because you're breaking down my "quixotic self-delusions", but because I'm tired of repeating myself to someone who lacks the intelligence to adopt new ideas. And I must say, the irony in misspelling "reatrd" is simply delicious. Idiot.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 I don't want to adopt new ideas when they are patently false. I have cited evidence, sent to you via PM, and in the comment section, now. So now there is no excuse for your monumental ignorance. But go ahead, block me. Afterall that is how atheism works when atheists are awarded any position of power. Brutal suppression of ideas different than their own on a scale that dwarfens even the worst crimes of religion. Oh, and typogrpahical error is different from a mispelling, dumbass.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@diagoras54 As for the "Dark Ages", the reason learning collapsed is because the brutal military despotism of the Roman Empire, that could support a tiny cultured elite by exploiting the vast proportion of the population, was destroyed by invasions of Germanic people. For Greeks and Romans, learning was for the leisured upper classes and, once they were overthrown, learning disappeared except in the church, which preserved it. For this we should all be extremely grateful.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 Yes, universal literacy is a modern phenomenon, but it was that "tiny cultured elite" that had the ability and the knowledge to develop philosophical, scientific and engineering marvels. The Church did away with any idea it felt contradicted its theology, including banning ideas that are right and enforcing ones that are wrong, such as geocentrism. I don't have a problem with them endorsing an incorrect theory, but I do take issue with them forcibly making it mandatory.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 That is also wrong. The Church did not go around "banning" ideas that "conflicted with its Theology". For example, Heliocentrism. The Church did nothing to prevent the works of Nicolaus Copernicus being published. In fact, Galileo Galilei recieved Papal approval... until he insulted the Pope quite badly in one of his books. Galileo's enemies then used this oppurtunity to press Geocentrism, which was held by the scientific consensus at the time, onto the Papacy.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 So the Catholic Church never burned any books or their authors because they disagreed with standard dogma? Cardinal Bellarmine ordered Galileo not to teach heliocentrism, and Copernican theory was placed on the list of banned books. Or does that not count as banning an idea? This isn't just the case for science; they killed plenty of people with dissenting religious ideas, or did the Cathars carry out the Albigensian Crusade on themselves?
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Copernicus' work was placed on the banned book... in Galileo's time. Before that, it was not. The whole reason heliocentrism was banned, was because Galileo refused to correct his poor argumentation (his works also supported the Tychonic view that the Earth did not move whilst everything else circled around the sun) and personally insulted all of his patrons, including the Pope. The Geocentrists used this to opportunity to promote their view. Unfortunately for science they succeeded.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 No, this is just another example of Christians trying to rewrite history to make it seem as though they weren't an enormous detriment to society. The evidence is "reexamined" and "reinterpreted" until it whitewashes Christianity. Unfortunately for you, the Ptolemaic model was adopted as the official Catholic system in the 4th Century because it supported scripture, and was maintained in that position on orders from the pope.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Ah, more historic revisionism. The Ptolemaic system was not supported because it "supported scripture", but because it was held by the scientific consensus, and Galileo did a piss poor job of trying to persuade the Pope that his theory was correct. Either way, if the Bible supports geocentrism and a flat earth, why is that Augustine, and many other Christian writers of the 5th century (and before) take the position that the Bible did not support either? You should do some studying.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 I don't care why the pope endorsed it, and, more importantly, made it mandatory, if Christianity is supposed to have a monopoly on truth. With regards to Augustine, you're flat-out wrong: Augustine was a staunch supporter of geocentrism, as you can see from this quote - "For perhaps the world keeps its central place by the same law that attracts to its center all heavy bodies". He also believed in a young Earth, which is wrong, so what does it matter what his opinion was?
diagoras54 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 Maybe you should actually find some evidence to back up your claims for once.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Evidence? It's basic history. Have you seriously never read The Literal Meaning of Genesis by Augustine of Hippo? I shall PM you some quotes from it (comment length and all).
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 No, I only happened to post a quote from it above. I also have portion of it open in front of me with passages underlined that endorse geocentrism. The quote you sent doesn't actually say anything about the position of the Earth within the universe, whereas numerous other quotes from his work endorse the sun as revolving around the Earth. You're reinterpreting his writing to force your beliefs into it, when clearly that's not what he says.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 In other words, you are a moron who would rather prefer to remain intoxicated in his myths than change his mind in the face of evidence. Your inability to comprehend even basic English is truly quite staggering. Pardon me for using facts, reason and logic.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 Regardless of the reason, there is no excuse for banning an idea, any idea, just because you're in a position of authority and don't like what someone has to say. There is no excuse for Christian suppression of any idea, including heliocentrism, evolution, or liberal morals.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Are you a moron, or are you just completely incapabe of understanding what other people are saying? Heliocentrism was surpressed because Galileo's argumentation was poor and he refused to expound on them. It is not the Church's fault that Galileo was a pompous ass who was unable to take criticim.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 This again? I can't believe how many Christians have tried the "He didn't have enough evidence" line on me. Take a telescope or a pair of binoculars. Point it at Jupiter. Look at the moons that are revolving around it, and not the Earth. IT'S RIGHT THERE! And again, you idiot, how can you justify the suppression of his ideas based on that? What if Pasteur hadn't had sufficient evidence and the Church banned germ theory because of it? He was still correct.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 By the way, the Cathars were dangerous, because they were actively trying to undermine the local authorities. They were a threat to society. Also, I will think you find that the Inqusitions excuted fewer people annually than the State of Texas. The Inqusitions were largely inneffectual, and resulted in about 9 deaths per year and only had jurisdiction against Christian heretics. Do you want to try again?
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 The Cathars included the nobles, i.e. the local authorities, or were supported by them, including Raymond VI of Toulouse, so I don't know how you can think they were undermining themselves. The Catholics had a great deal of difficulty trying to convert them because of the resistance of local authorities. Yet another instance of Christians attempting to whitewash their black history.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 It does not matter that Nobles joined, seeing as they were a minority group trying to undermine the established social order.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 So nothing is ever allowed to change? "Social order" has to remain static? Perhaps you'd still like to be a serf, and Indians should maintains castes. You have to be one of the most closed-minded bigots I've ever encountered if you believe that minorities should submit to majority rule.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Not neccessarily, but in this case, yes, seeing as Catharism was a dangerous heretical sect. I have no problem against minorities, just dangerous ones. Unless you would like for the BNP to take control of Britain, or for Muslims shoudl take control of Europe? I'm a close-minded bigot? This, coming from the guy who believes murderers and criminals should not be held accountable for their crimes? Oh, the irony.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 At what point did I say criminals shouldn't be punished? And you accuse me of creating straw men? Cathars were dangerous and heretical in your opinion, but I'm quite certain they didn't spend every day plotting the downfall of Western civilization. They were just another religious group, like the Mormons, that didn't adhere to traditional Christian dogma; is that reason enough to massacre them and their children? Even if some were dangerous, you can't blame them all.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 In any case, how can you support all-out war against an entire people? It's essentially genocide. Although I'm sure you're one of those who believes the Israelites just had to kill every man, woman and child they encountered in Canaan; it was justified after all. As for the Inquisition, it was more like 80 per year, and again, I don't see how you can justify the torture and murder of a single person. Christianity has blood on its hands, by anyone's calculations.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Your historic illitericism is even greater than I first thought. The Cathars were a sect, not a race people moron. Are you honestly this stupid? Either way, the Catholic Church tried to make peace with the Cathars. They didn't work, do you know why? Because the Cathars had the Papal legate, Pierre de Castelnau, assassinated. I suspect you are one of those who thinks we should let terrorists just walk all over us.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 It's ironic that you call me illiterate when you can't even read what I wrote: "essentially genocide". Note the qualifier. The Cathars lived in a particular region, forming almost the entire population, and France at the time was formed of many disparate ethnicities; the Cathars were, ESSENTIALLY, a unique ethnicity. And do you actually advocate killing the entire populace, including women and children, just because one agent of the pope was murdered?
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Not just one agent of the Pope, although that was the final straw that ignited the whole Albigensian crusade. And they were not ONE people group. It started in the Langeodoc region, in the 11th century, but it spread across other regions in the South of France through the 12th and 13th centuries. Still, I like how you are suggesting that you should just allow murderers get off scot free. Maybe that is why you find the idea of hell so frustrating?
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 No, I think murders should be punished accordingly, not that their families, friends, neighbours and business associates should be killed too. There is no justification for trying to exterminate an entire group of people; do you think their children were culpable as well? You, quite simply, are out of your mind, and a prime example of why Christian apologists are a danger to our society. You can't whitewash your history and pretend Christians weren't brutal killers.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 No matter that the legate was assassinated by Raymond VI, who was a supporter of the Cathars, but not one of them. Are you actually excusing an entire crusade on the murder of one man? Why not justify the Holocaust by saying that some Jewish murderers were killed? You are an imbecile and completely out of your mind. I don't advocate murder, but nor would I be a fan of people actively trying to convert me to their religion.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Also, the Israelities did not kill every man, woman and child in Canaan. Then again, if you had read the Bible, I am sure that you would have known that. However, it is funny you say Christianity has blood on its hands, seeing as how atheist regimes have been directly responsible for the deaths of approximately 185,000,000 people in 100 years. The total deaths at the hands of Christianity? Less than 10% of that, over 1,600 years.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 No, they didn't, but they were ordered to by god, and their failure to do so led to their downfall. They did, however, succeed against the Midianites, although they kept the virgins for sex slaves. It doesn't matter though; if you actually think carrying out a war of extirmination against any group of people is acceptable, you are insane and sick.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Wrong, again, as usual. I also like how you keep misrepresenting not just what it says in the Bible, but what I am sayign. I guess it didn't matter that the Midianites et al. were vicious murdering bandit tribes who sacificed their children to idols. Your monumental ignorance, not just of the Bible, but the Ancient Near East as a whole is truly quite shocking.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 No, it doesn't matter what they did. There's no reason to kill an entire group of people. Moses became angry because the Israelites didn't want to kill the non-virgin women and children, and forced them to murder almost everyone. There is no possible way you can argue that the entire Midian population, children included, were murderous bandits who deserved death. YOU ARE INSANE.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 I've already addressed the issue of "atheist" regimes killing people; most importantly, they weren't motivated by their atheism, they were motivated by power, whereas Christian regimes killed for religion. There's also a huge difference in the technology available to kill people, and the fact that the population of Europe was so small that it would have been impossible to kill the same number of people.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Ah, the good 'ol Special Pleading and No True Scotsman fallacies.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 No, I'm saying that if you actually look at the facts you'll find that the "death toll" includes those who died in famines and war, on top of those who were executed. The reason executions and imprisonments took place were to suppress political opposition, not because they didn't believe in god. Suppression of political opponents takes place, and always has, in every dictatorship, regardless of religion. Christian regimes, however, killed for religion in particular.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 80 per year? Really? You are honestly putting that forward. Then our discussion is over. You are so ignorant of world history that it talking to you regarding matters of history would be like talking to a creationist in matters regarding science.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 Why, because it differs from your belief? You didn't provide a source, so I can just as easily say that you made it up. More importantly, HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY KILLING EVEN ONE PERSON?
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 No, because it differs from I learnt in History. Either way, here are some to get you started: -
Lea, Henry Charles, A History of the Inquisition of Spain.
Agostino Borromeo, Vatican Revision on Inquistion History.
The Spanish Inqusition ran between 1481 and 1834, with a total number of people executed of 3,230. That is 9 per year.
The Medieval Inqusitions ran between 1184 and 1500 claimed 2,000. That is 6 per year. Portuguese Inquisition, 1540-1794, 1,175 deaths. 5 per year.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 I'm sure you're referring more to the Medieval period, which was better, but still horrendous by modern standards. There was an atrocious mortality rate due to famine, disease, war, natural disasters and religious persecution of anyone with a slightly different belief system, or even just people they didn't like. Apologists have tried to recharacterize it as a time of romance which wasn't really as bad as everyone remembers; it's true, literacy was more like 20% than 10.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 Science was just slightly less backward than we originally thought, and technology hadn't devolved from its Roman origins as much as we believed. But that doesn't change the fact that the church taught that disease was a result of sin, banned medicine, and led to the deaths of a third of the people in Europe in one plague alone.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 I am sorry, but that is just plain incorrect.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 Wow. You couldn't have used more facts to back up that very substantive post. Justinian's Plague. When doctors couldn't solve it, the Church declared it to be caused by sin, and mandated confession and penance as a cure. That led directly to 1/3 of Europe's population dying from the Black Death. So what, exactly, is incorrect about that? Do you deny that 1/3 of the people in Europe died from the Black Death, or that Christians were directly responsible for the demise of medicine?
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Firstly, the Plague of Justian wasn't the Black Death, the Black Death was a specific pandemic that occurred in the 14th Century. The Black Death, in fact, was worse than the Plague of Justinian. As for your claim that the Church halted medicine, firstly, the Church was not even in a position to "mandate cures". Secondly, the reason people turned to prayer and monastic medicine was because the learned physicians of the day were unable to effect a cure. How is that the Churches fault?
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 Wow. You simply are an idiot. At what point did I say that Justinian's Plague was the Black Death? Try to find it; you'll probably go blind before you do. I said that Justinian's Plague led to the church declaring that disease is caused by sin; that was official doctrine for over a millenium. The official solution to disease during the Middle Ages was prayer, and when, centuries after the Plague of Justinian, people started dying from the Black Death, their solution was useless.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 I'm sorry, you started by talking about the Plague of Justinian, and then said how the Church's actions led to 1/3 of the European population dying during the Black Death. I simply assumed that you were a moron who was equating the two. Either way, what of the clergy who opened the first European Universities where dissection, chemistry and deep study of the human anatomy led to the medical revolution? What about Trotula of Solerno, the great female physician of the middle ages?
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 The universities were founded by the clergy, but it was centuries later, and not under their authority, that medical studies were carried out. Practical medicine consisted largely of bandaging wounds, amputating limbs, and using folk remedies such as herbs and even bleeding. The Church only preserved those texts it felt were in line with Christian theology, including those of Galen, which adhered to the theory of humours. They were entirely wrong.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 Yes, Galen had a great deal of information on anatomy, but we don't know how many other texts were destroyed that may have had more accurate theories on disease. And Trotula's works were also based on humours and the fact that women are colder than men, and have to release excess nutrients through menstruation. Medical science only really began to expand in northern Europe after the Reformation, when there was no further fear of being burned for not adhering to Catholic dogma.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Ooo, an argument from Ignorance as well as an appeal to probability. Nice one!
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 It's fascinating that when I back you into a corner you don't actually address my points, you just throw out incorrect logical fallacies. The only ignorance here is your own.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Oh, the irony. When you can correctly tell me what the Semitic Totality Concept is, then maybe I will listen you.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 We're done. I'm not going to waste my time having a discussion with you about something completely unrelated. I haven't brought up the unity of the body and soul, or anything even remotely similar, and the fact that you want to change the topic rather than address my issues with how you're a war mongering psychopath indicates that you're dishonest and moronic. I have no further interest in discussing anything with you.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Nice use of Wikipedia chump. Still, I like how you keep changing the subject to avoid my charge that you are a sententious, acrimonious, supercilious, pusillanimous, calumnious, censorious, vituperative, querulous, embittered, obsessive and bombastic moron who spouts nothing but intolerance and bigotry-laden arguments full of non-sequiturs, caricatures, straw men and vitriol. I also find it hilarious how you kept changing the subject, yet have the gall to say I am a subject changer.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@diagoras54 What about the translation, distribution, and study of the works of Galen that was carried out by the many monastic orders? Are you seriously blaming the Church for the Black Plague? If anything, it was the church, it's research and practices that was the only thing that kept much of Europe alive.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Medicine and other professions declined because of two things: -
Barbarian hordes and the bubonic Plague that were both ravaging Europe. The plague allowed for Goths to gain a larger advantage over Constantinople, and also led to serious economic problems. As such, I do not think that the stupidity of the citizenry, the inability to find a medical cure for the plague as well invading armies and economy problems were the fault of the church.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@geminyo As for your last question, the answer is, quite obviously, no. The one thing "keeping them out of hell" is salvation, which is a lifelong process, not a single event. In Christian theolgy, salvation requires action (following Jesus' teaching) based on belief (in Jesus' Resurrection), although salvation is given, not earned. There are those who, falsely, give equal credence to their religious leaders, but we tend to dismiss these people.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 Well, that's nice and all, but the point made still lies on the table... We are intrinsically 'flawed', without having done anything to cause that ourselves. We do not deserve to be treated with love and care, except for when we submit our entire lives to the one who made us flawed to begin with. Now, you can lecture me on original sin and all, but I still can't fathom the fact that so many people cannot see the beauty of the human being on its own, without any strings attached.
McTrico 1 year ago
@McTrico No, not really. Human beings have free will. Humans inevetibly make mistakes, becuase they do what they want, which sometimes leads to bad things. You could argue "Why didn't God make us perfect to begin with?" but the simple answer is, it woud have reduced us to mindless automatons. It would be like programming an AI to only say things you agree with. It is better for us to learn through experience and choose to serve God on our own, rather than being pre-programmed robots.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@Randomicity912 Actually, yes. The Bible says that everyone is imperfect and has sinned; even if you followed all of the commandments, never harmed anyone, and were a wonderful person every day, you still need salvation through Jesus. Of course, god didn't have to make hell in the first place. He could have just put us in heaven: there was no need to test us first. He punishes everyone who doesn't follow his law, even if they lived in a time or place where they couldn't have known it.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Okay, hopefully YouTube will let me reply to your comment this time. Is it okay if I reply via PM? I do not think that the comment section is the best place to discuss due to character limits and that the reply to your argument(s) would be quite lenghtly.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
brilliant
stillstandin4you 1 year ago
Oh there is Punishment for what an ancestor did. Some Ancestors believed Christianity and Look were we are now!!!! We gotta explain the obvious. HAHAHA. Excellent Video Man. Good Work.
graphattic 1 year ago