It's not a historical thing, I don't believe, because in that sense the Islamic faith would be more valid as it is more recent.

Because no one went around with swords and armies demanding the people believe in Zeus or fact extreme harrassment or possible death.

Christianity was spread by force, fear, and threat.

Are you familiar with what the Christians did to the library at Alexandira? That was a "Pagan" institution! The Christians would have non of that Pagan crap! They ripped Hypatia apart and then destoryed the whole foundation of pagan culture.

Christianity was spread by force.

Have you ever read the history of scientists who suggested that the Earth was not at the center of the unvierse?

That was basically considered to be blaspheme!

In fact, as late as the 1700's, even great scholars like Isaac Newton could not publicly voice their opinions that they didn't believe that Jesus was God. To do so could get a person hung at worse, or at least finanically ruined and run out of town at best.

We don't see this today because we have freedom of speech. But it wasn't all that long ago that you wouldn't dare deny that Jesus is God or you would be facing some serious charges and social difficulties.

So that's why it grew to become such a 'well-believed-in' religion. Deny it and you're dead meet.

Plus the Holy Book itself demands that the only single "unforgivable sin" is to deny the Holy Spirit. And since it comes from that book, which is suppose to be the "Word of God", then to deny the Bible is to deny the Holy Spirit.

I don't think there was anything in the Greek religion of Zeus that demanded that Zeus was obscessive about being jealous or that he demanded that anyone believed in him. The Greeks just believed because they believed. Not because anyone threated to harm them if they refused to believe.

I think that's why Christianity convered the Greeks over so easily. There wasn't any real resistance built into the Greek Mythology. It never demanded that anyone has to believe it. It just assumed you would believe it.

The authors of the Bible were truly devious in this regard. They demanded that you believe what they wrote or else!!! You would be sorely sorry and God will hate you as well as the church and the community and everybody. Don't even THINK about rejecting their book as the word of God. That's a BIG NO-NO!

Dear Abra;

There is some truth in what you have written, but AGAIN you misidentify the participants

I wish you would quit attributing to Christianity what Catholicism has done

Perhaps if I explain it this way:

You know many ignorant people do not make a distinction between paganism and satanism.

What if I judged you and your religion (paganism) by all the things satanists have done

Wouldn't it be irritating for you to read judgement and condemnation on paganism because you worship the devil and sacrifice babies

Geeezzz Abra;

you would be so much more pleasant to read if you could get this one fact straight

I can think of several reasons.

WE arent in Greece or Rome, where I am sure there probably are many people who treat greek Gods as factual.

There isnt the GLOBAL organization of networks dedicated to preserving the 'word' of Zeus.

There isnt a word of Zeus.

There isnt , to my knowledge, an account of anyone coming to witness and respresent Zeus existence.



Zeus was not a creator of human life,,,therefore, belief in him would be tantamount to me believing I have a long lost uncle,, as opposed to my knowledge that I do have a father.

and

For whatever reason, there is not a book, thousands of years old, that has collected inspired accounts of his sons life on earth and that son's verification of several other accounts of his word.

With all due respect Sparrows, there is no misidentity. It's written right in the Bible. It's the authors of the book that made these proclamations.

You keep acting like you have your own idea of what constitutes a "real Christian". But that's your own personal delusion.

The authors of Bible have something else to say entirely. They are making a claim that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of the God of the Old Testament. They also have Jesus saying that he did not come to change the law, and that not on jot nor one tittle shall pass from law.

Well, it was God's Law that heathens are not to be tolerated. There are places in the Old Testament where God specifically states that it's the duty of his people to look into anyone suspected of being a heathen, and to kill them including their wives and childern and the entire village from whence they came.

Now if you believe that Jesus is the Son of Yawhew and did not come to change the law one jot nor one tittle, then there's absolutely no reason to believe that his old law has changed.

I would love for Christianity to be the "bleeding heart" religion of Jesus too. But let's face it, that's just not possible based on scritpure.

Even YOU use the Old Testament to renounce things like homosexuality. Jesus never even mentioned the topic.

So if you can use the OT to renounce homosexuality in God's name, then why can't other people be just as justified in proclaiming that the murdering of Heathens should also still be in effect?

A lot of Christians belief that the moral teachings of Jesus only apply to "God's people". In other words, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", only applies to those who believe in God, it just doesn't apply to heathens at all.

That's a valid point of view, and that's precisely the view that the early church took.

In fact, to dismiss that view you'd have to explain why Jesus LIED when he said that he did not come to change the law and not one jot nor one tittle will pass from law.

It's a seriously problematic religion when taken "seriously".

This is wearisome

Look at your last post on this;
It is about what Catholicism did to Isaac Newton, libraries etc...
That is the post addressed
Now you're off on something else;about the Bible; not that I wouldn't enjoy disscussing it, but geezz show some integrity
Don't bait and switch
It would be so nice if people would quit "redirecting" when the discussion leads them to a truth they are unwilling to accept

fulfill

2 a : to put into effect : execute b : to meet the requirements of (a business order) c : to bring to an end d : to measure up to : satisfy

change

2 a : to replace with another <let's change the subject> b : to make a shift from one to another : switch <always changes sides in an argument> c : to exchange for an equivalent sum of money (as in smaller denominations or in a foreign currency) <change a 20-dollar bill> d : to undergo a modification of <foliage changing color> e : to put fresh clothes or covering on <change a bed>
intransitive verb

Mt 5:17-18
Don’t think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill. For most assuredly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished

( If I have a list of things , I plan to accomplish the list,, as I complete each task, I am not changing my list,, but fulfilling it)


I do find it interesting that Jesus did not specifically speak to many things,,did he expect his FOLLOWERS to know certain things? His entire sermon on the mount concerned how MEN should act,, would that mean he didnt care how women carried themselves? He didnt speak specifically about beating a woman,, but did that mean he didnt think it was important?

My opinion, as I have often said in the political forum, is no one can cover EVERY topic and be EVERY PLACE doing EVERY THING at one time. A sermon covers specific items and the next one covers other items,, and so forth. Perhaps this sermon was included in the Bible because other laws were expected to just be known or perhaps they had been covered in other sermons. We must remember, no book could possibly record EVERY action and EVERY word anyone has ever said if they have lived any length of time,,,it would take too much paper,,lol

exactly and just like the old saying what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

And in a family the man is the head of the family, meaning he is the one to set the example.

If you nottice the bible specifically says "man" through out the bible, but very seldom give rules specifically for women. That is cause the laws are for us ALL to abide minus the ones that specifically say woman, those are just specifically for the women.

I happen to agree, but I didnt want to get into the whole christian man as the head thing (get peoples heads rolling and frothing at the mouth with that one..lol)

Dear Abra

*just a reminder:
Now that msharmony has addressed your post, 'excellently' I might add. It is time for you to switch back to the catholic church's crimes against humanity or redirect to some other whatever

Or you could suprise us and pick up right where she left off??? Would love to hear why you disagree with her on this!

LoL yeah it does. And it gets alot of ego shot through the roof. They take it as they control the woman, but they forget that men have rules in the area of being the head of the family. They mysteriously forget about the area it says to be generous, loving, and it's there job to provide for the family.