Occult causes 12 Year to Attempt Murder

[JakeStarkey]

shart, there is no sense to this OP: justa buncha yammering.

 

[LockeJaw]

The society you live in decides what is moral or civilized.

Why do I have to accept what the society I live in says if Im just a random occurence?

You don't need any authority to determine killing someone is not a good thing.

Wrong. Would you agree that killing Osama was a good thing? If morality is subjective, I can decide an aspect of your morality is evil & contrary to my own to the point it is dangerous to allow you to continue propagating tour evil morals, at that point, I have every right to kill you for that, and my morality tells me it's good to kill you because your morals are abhorrent to mine. Right? If not, why?
You simply ask yourself if you would want it done to you.
I wish human nature worked like that, but it doesn't. If that were the case people wouldn't be doing others wrong after kindergarten, since we get taught that you keep your hands to yourself & all that other stuff in kindergarten.

Everyone works towards making that perfect place a goal. It doesn't just happen instantly.
That is a pipe dream. History has shown this goal to be unattainable due to human nature. The people feeding you this pipe dream are only interested in power & control. They know using squishy language to hide their true motives is the way to fool you. USSR, mao's china come to mind as examples..
Using an air spirit as the final authority eventually is going to be proven as false or at the very least easy to cast doubt upon.
I think the "airspirit" will reveal himself before us puny humans will prove it doesn't exist.

The question is what are you going to now that the gig is up? If you want people to buy in to becoming part of a civilized society you cant have one hundred different versions of that air spirit with millions of different rules on how to conduct oneself. What you need is a consensus of the entire population to respect some basic rules of humanity.

Answers in the quote above.

 

[martybegan]

No I dont see that as a bad thing. They are doing it to themselves not other people. You should try a little harder to prove the religions I listed have done something good that no other religions have done.

You are the one setting the standard that the religions have to do some "good that others have not done." Your original statements do not make that distinction, which implies goal-post moving on your part.

And your ignoring the fact that Buddhism is OK in some sects with self immolation leads to further evidence of goal-post moving.

Thats correct. I am setting the standard. That was my whole point. What is the use of religion if it does not do good? You still havent told me what good Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism has done that other religions have not done. As a matter of fact a religion needs to do minimal to zero bad and all good. I didnt ignore the fact that some Buddhist self immolate. I said they are only harming themselves. How is that harming someone else?

It isn't a question of having to show what good one religion has done that others have not done. What type of standard is that?

And if you set the minimal to zero bad standard to atheism, it fails miserably.

All three of those religions give a sense of community, a sense of purpose, and a sense of morality to the people who follow them. That is good enough, and one doesn't even have to go into the charitable work they do, or the sense of purpose they give some people.

Again, why does religion have to be held to a bar you obviously don't want agnosticism/atheism or other "harmless" (as you call them) religions held to?

And talk to friends and family members of someone who immolates themselves before you call it harmless to others.

 

[Asclepias]

The society you live in decides what is moral or civilized.

Why do I have to accept what the society I live in says if Im just a random occurence?

You don't need any authority to determine killing someone is not a good thing.

Wrong. Would you agree that killing Osama was a good thing? If morality is subjective, I can decide an aspect of your morality is evil & contrary to my own to the point it is dangerous to allow you to continue propagating tour evil morals, at that point, I have every right to kill you for that, and my morality tells me it's good to kill you because your morals are abhorrent to mine. Right? If not, why?
You simply ask yourself if you would want it done to you.
I wish human nature worked like that, but it doesn't. If that were the case people wouldn't be doing others wrong after kindergarten, since we get taught that you keep your hands to yourself & all that other stuff in kindergarten.

Everyone works towards making that perfect place a goal. It doesn't just happen instantly.
That is a pipe dream. History has shown this goal to be attainable due to human nature. The people feeding you this pipe dream are only interested in power & control. They know using squishy language to hide their true motives is the way to fool you. USSR, mao's china come to mind as examples..
Using an air spirit as the final authority eventually is going to be proven as false or at the very least easy to cast doubt upon.
I think the "airspirit" will reveal himself before us puny humans will prove it doesn't exist.

The question is what are you going to now that the gig is up? If you want people to buy in to becoming part of a civilized society you cant have one hundred different versions of that air spirit with millions of different rules on how to conduct oneself. What you need is a consensus of the entire population to respect some basic rules of humanity.

Answers in the quote above.

You dont have to accept what society says. I said society defines what is right and wrong. Many people don't accept that and thats why we have the issues we have today.

Killing someone for no reason is what I am talking about. Like stabbing a 12 year old because you want to emulate a character on a website. Osama killed plenty of innocent people. He got what karma dictated. Killing someone because you disagree with their morals is the height of stupidity and the reason religions are dangerous. When retards start thinking they have the right to kill someone because of their religion you end up proving your stupidity.

Human nature does work like that. We are instinctually social animals. What is acceptable is determined by the group we live in and the messages overt and covert we get from that group. If those messages conflict you can pretty much bet you will have issues.

A "perfect place" is only a pipe dream if you have never experienced working towards it and do not have the intelligence to understand process. Quitters typically say things are "pipe dreams". Thats why we have a whole nation of losers that think like that. You should watch the words you use and the effect they have on your psyche.

Too late. We have already proven the bible is a crock of lies. Humanity has existed much longer than the bible says. That should tip you off that it was written by people with political aspirations and social control in mind.

 

[Asclepias]

You are the one setting the standard that the religions have to do some "good that others have not done." Your original statements do not make that distinction, which implies goal-post moving on your part.

And your ignoring the fact that Buddhism is OK in some sects with self immolation leads to further evidence of goal-post moving.

Thats correct. I am setting the standard. That was my whole point. What is the use of religion if it does not do good? You still havent told me what good Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism has done that other religions have not done. As a matter of fact a religion needs to do minimal to zero bad and all good. I didnt ignore the fact that some Buddhist self immolate. I said they are only harming themselves. How is that harming someone else?

It isn't a question of having to show what good one religion has done that others have not done. What type of standard is that?

And if you set the minimal to zero bad standard to atheism, it fails miserably.

All three of those religions give a sense of community, a sense of purpose, and a sense of morality to the people who follow them. That is good enough, and one doesn't even have to go into the charitable work they do, or the sense of purpose they give some people.

Again, why does religion have to be held to a bar you obviously don't want agnosticism/atheism or other "harmless" (as you call them) religions held to?

And talk to friends and family members of someone who immolates themselves before you call it harmless to others.

Yes it is a question of what good a religion has done vs the bad. Who told you it wasnt the standard? I dont believe the atheist are correct and I have never heard of any of them offering a solution other than a god doesnt exist. However, I have never heard of atheists killing people to convert them to atheism or taking over countries and wiping out entire populations in the name of "no god exists". Have you?

You dont need a religion to have a sense of community, a sense of purpose, or a sense of morality. All you need is people to agree on rules of conduct, a specific goal, and what constitutes getting to that goal with everyone benefitting. Only the easily led believe you need a religion to do that. I belong to an organization with people of totally different religious and racial backgrounds and they have a sense of community, purpose and morality. Who do you think you are fooling?

Again why should religion be accepted if its not doing what it should and can be disproven since its based on a sky fairy? Do you really want to base your rationale for something on a easily disproven concept?

I dont need to talk to the family and friends of people that are related to people who take their own life. They are still alive and breathing. They can chose to stop living and flounder in misery over what someone else did to their own body or they can ponder what possibly that person was thinking for a brief moment, then continue on with life doing good for every person they meet.

 

[LockeJaw]

Asclepias, so tell me why and how getting rid of religion & replacing it with morally subjective atheism will solve all these conflicts people have within our current societies?

In my estimation, it would end up being a bad idea. You know, if it weren't for those bible thumping abolitionists & their inferior Christian morals...our ancestors may have had to live under the whip for much longer than they did?

We would not have societies & civilizations as we do today if you took a morally subjective, atheistic world population to it's logical conclusion. So many moral differences would lead to bloody local conflicts eventually, on a world wide scale.

Might would make right, morality would mean nothing.

 

[martybegan]

Thats correct. I am setting the standard. That was my whole point. What is the use of religion if it does not do good? You still havent told me what good Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism has done that other religions have not done. As a matter of fact a religion needs to do minimal to zero bad and all good. I didnt ignore the fact that some Buddhist self immolate. I said they are only harming themselves. How is that harming someone else?

It isn't a question of having to show what good one religion has done that others have not done. What type of standard is that?

And if you set the minimal to zero bad standard to atheism, it fails miserably.

All three of those religions give a sense of community, a sense of purpose, and a sense of morality to the people who follow them. That is good enough, and one doesn't even have to go into the charitable work they do, or the sense of purpose they give some people.

Again, why does religion have to be held to a bar you obviously don't want agnosticism/atheism or other "harmless" (as you call them) religions held to?

And talk to friends and family members of someone who immolates themselves before you call it harmless to others.

Yes it is a question of what good a religion has done vs the bad. Who told you it wasnt the standard? I dont believe the atheist are correct and I have never heard of any of them offering a solution other than a god doesnt exist. However, I have never heard of atheists killing people to convert them to atheism or taking over countries and wiping out entire populations in the name of "no god exists". Have you?

You dont need a religion to have a sense of community, a sense of purpose, or a sense of morality. All you need is people to agree on rules of conduct, a specific goal, and what constitutes getting to that goal with everyone benefitting. Only the easily led believe you need a religion to do that. I belong to an organization with people of totally different religious and racial backgrounds and they have a sense of community, purpose and morality. Who do you think you are fooling?

Again why should religion be accepted if its not doing what it should and can be disproven since its based on a sky fairy? Do you really want to base your rationale for something on a easily disproven concept?

I dont need to talk to the family and friends of people that are related to people who take their own life. They are still alive and breathing. They can chose to stop living and flounder in misery over what someone else did to their own body or they can ponder what possibly that person was thinking for a brief moment, then continue on with life doing good for every person they meet.

You forgot a little thing called communism. See the Russian purges after the revolution, or China's Cultural revolution.

Who said ONLY religion can provide this? You are the one going out of your way to insult people of faith with your "sky fairy" references.

And fine, prove god does not exist. Good luck with that.

 

[Asclepias]

Asclepias, so tell me why and how getting rid of religion & replacing it with morally subjective atheism will solve all these conflicts people have within our current societies?

In my estimation, it would end up being a bad idea. You know, if it weren't for those bible thumping abolitionists & their inferior Christian morals...our ancestors may have had to live under the whip for much longer than they did?

We would not have societies & civilizations as we do today if you took a morally subjective, atheistic world population to it's logical conclusion. So many moral differences would lead to bloody local conflicts eventually, on a world wide scale.

Might would make right, morality would mean nothing.

You dont have to get rid of religion. Just stop letting sky fairies make the rules. If you wish to practice a religion that should be a personal thing and not something to enforce upon everyone else. I am not advocating morally subjective rule. I said we need to come up with some rules not based on a religion. Moral and religion are not the same thing. Anyone that tells you that is lying. You can believe in treating people correctly and not believe in a god.

The reason you believe the christians are responsible for freeing our ancestors is because you have not been taught the fact they used that very same religion to justify bringing our ancestors over here in the first place. You also fail to realize our ancestors were not freed because everyone suddenly repented and wanted to be good christians. Thats a very naive position to hold.. We were no longer needed and those same christians wanted our ancestors out of the country, anywhere else but here in the US now that they were done extracting the labor in order to make the US the economic power it became.

 

[Asclepias]

It isn't a question of having to show what good one religion has done that others have not done. What type of standard is that?

And if you set the minimal to zero bad standard to atheism, it fails miserably.

All three of those religions give a sense of community, a sense of purpose, and a sense of morality to the people who follow them. That is good enough, and one doesn't even have to go into the charitable work they do, or the sense of purpose they give some people.

Again, why does religion have to be held to a bar you obviously don't want agnosticism/atheism or other "harmless" (as you call them) religions held to?

And talk to friends and family members of someone who immolates themselves before you call it harmless to others.

Yes it is a question of what good a religion has done vs the bad. Who told you it wasnt the standard? I dont believe the atheist are correct and I have never heard of any of them offering a solution other than a god doesnt exist. However, I have never heard of atheists killing people to convert them to atheism or taking over countries and wiping out entire populations in the name of "no god exists". Have you?

You dont need a religion to have a sense of community, a sense of purpose, or a sense of morality. All you need is people to agree on rules of conduct, a specific goal, and what constitutes getting to that goal with everyone benefitting. Only the easily led believe you need a religion to do that. I belong to an organization with people of totally different religious and racial backgrounds and they have a sense of community, purpose and morality. Who do you think you are fooling?

Again why should religion be accepted if its not doing what it should and can be disproven since its based on a sky fairy? Do you really want to base your rationale for something on a easily disproven concept?

I dont need to talk to the family and friends of people that are related to people who take their own life. They are still alive and breathing. They can chose to stop living and flounder in misery over what someone else did to their own body or they can ponder what possibly that person was thinking for a brief moment, then continue on with life doing good for every person they meet.

You forgot a little thing called communism. See the Russian purges after the revolution, or China's Cultural revolution.

Who said ONLY religion can provide this? You are the one going out of your way to insult people of faith with your "sky fairy" references.

And fine, prove god does not exist. Good luck with that.

What does communism have to do with being an atheist?

Religion is a piss poor provider of real community, purpose, and morality. You seem to have an issue with this and claimed that is what religion does as if that is the excuse for letting it kill people.

Why would I want to prove god does not exist? I just dont want your version of a god making rules for me. You can believe what you want to. Anyone else can point to the bible as a fairytale and say if that is incorrect you need to prove your god exists not the other way around.

 

[LockeJaw]

The type of slavery practiced in the Early Americas is NOT biblically allowable.. Instead of typing it all out, I have a series of videos of a young man refuting that myth propagated by atheists PERFECTLY...with all the links & sources you need to confirm it's not biblically permissable right in the info bar.

Part 1-
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWZYRy24gVQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player]Slavery in the bible TheAtheistPaladin 13 - YouTube[/ame]

Part 2-
*[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ1KVm-gvMc&feature=youtube_gdata_player]Slavery in the bible TheAtheistPaladin 23 - YouTube[/ame]

Part 3-
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtYDHeUPc20&feature=youtube_gdata_player]Slavery in the bible TheAtheistPaladin 3/3 - YouTube[/ame]

Asclepias, so tell me why and how getting rid of religion & replacing it with morally subjective atheism will solve all these conflicts people have within our current societies?

In my estimation, it would end up being a bad idea. You know, if it weren't for those bible thumping abolitionists & their inferior Christian morals...our ancestors may have had to live under the whip for much longer than they did?

We would not have societies & civilizations as we do today if you took a morally subjective, atheistic world population to it's logical conclusion. So many moral differences would lead to bloody local conflicts eventually, on a world wide scale.

Might would make right, morality would mean nothing.

You dont have to get rid of religion. Just stop letting sky fairies make the rules. If you wish to practice a religion that should be a personal thing and not something to enforce upon everyone else. I am not advocating morally subjective rule. I said we need to come up with some rules not based on a religion. Moral and religion are not the same thing. Anyone that tells you that is lying. You can believe in treating people correctly and not believe in a god.

The reason you believe the christians are responsible for freeing our ancestors is because you have not been taught the fact they used that very same religion to justify bringing our ancestors over here in the first place. You also fail to realize our ancestors were not freed because everyone suddenly repented and wanted to be good christians. Thats a very naive position to hold.. We were no longer needed and those same christians wanted our ancestors out of the country, anywhere else but here in the US now that they were done extracting the labor in order to make the US the economic power it became.

 

[Asclepias]

The type of slavery practiced in the Early Americas is NOT biblically allowable.. Instead of typing it all out, I have a series of videos of a young man refuting that myth propagated by atheists PERFECTLY...with all the links & sources you need to confirm it's not biblically permissable right in the info bar.

Part 1-
Slavery in the bible TheAtheistPaladin 13 - YouTube

Part 2-
*Slavery in the bible TheAtheistPaladin 23 - YouTube

Part 3-
Slavery in the bible TheAtheistPaladin 3/3 - YouTube

Asclepias, so tell me why and how getting rid of religion & replacing it with morally subjective atheism will solve all these conflicts people have within our current societies?

In my estimation, it would end up being a bad idea. You know, if it weren't for those bible thumping abolitionists & their inferior Christian morals...our ancestors may have had to live under the whip for much longer than they did?

We would not have societies & civilizations as we do today if you took a morally subjective, atheistic world population to it's logical conclusion. So many moral differences would lead to bloody local conflicts eventually, on a world wide scale.

Might would make right, morality would mean nothing.

You dont have to get rid of religion. Just stop letting sky fairies make the rules. If you wish to practice a religion that should be a personal thing and not something to enforce upon everyone else. I am not advocating morally subjective rule. I said we need to come up with some rules not based on a religion. Moral and religion are not the same thing. Anyone that tells you that is lying. You can believe in treating people correctly and not believe in a god.

The reason you believe the christians are responsible for freeing our ancestors is because you have not been taught the fact they used that very same religion to justify bringing our ancestors over here in the first place. You also fail to realize our ancestors were not freed because everyone suddenly repented and wanted to be good christians. Thats a very naive position to hold.. We were no longer needed and those same christians wanted our ancestors out of the country, anywhere else but here in the US now that they were done extracting the labor in order to make the US the economic power it became.

I dont need videos to tell me it was not allowable according to the bible . The point is that spreading christianity (religion) to "the savages" was the primary tool used to rationalize conquering and enslaving people. The Catholic church started it off with a papal bull declaring everyone else heathens, pagans etc and therefore subject to slavery.


Papal Bull Dum Diversas

Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas on 18 June, 1452. It authorised Alfonso V of Portugal to reduce any “Saracens (Muslims) and pagans and any other unbelievers” to perpetual slavery. This facilitated the Portuguese slave trade from West Africa.

The same pope wrote the bull Romanus Pontifex on January 5, 1455 to the same Alfonso. As a follow-up to the Dum diversas, it extended to the Catholic nations of Europe dominion over discovered lands during the Age of Discovery. Along with sanctifying the seizure of non-Christian lands, it encouraged the enslavement of native, non-Christian peoples in Africa and the New World.

How do you think the Christians rationalized subjecting people to the brand of slavery practised in the here in the Americas? Their religion told them it was OK.

 

[September]

Did anyone actually read the story?! This is freaking awesome!

Supposedly they felt they must kill someone in order to "climb up into the realm" of Slenderman...

Here are some depictions of the mysterious figure known as "Slenderman"... which seems to combine all sorts of young nightmarish fears into one "creepy" fantasy monster...

Wiki says "The Slenderman is commonly said to stalk, abduct, or traumatize people, particularly children. The Slenderman is described as very tall and thin with unnaturally long, tentacle-like arms (or merely tentacles), which it can extend to intimidate or capture prey. It has a white, featureless head and appears to be wearing a dark suit and tie. The Slender Man is associated with the forest and has the ability to teleport."

This is the creature that they were willing to kill for in attempt to commune with!!! What devoted little acolytes!!! What twisted potential has gone to waste! Its a pity they will be imprisoned for this. Their sacrifice didn't even die! :-(

My God. Children willing to sacrifice human life through outright murder in attempt to "summon" a nightmarish phantom? I soooo can't help but to be impressed! Where were the other kids like that when I was little girl? Slenderman shows up a decade fucking late.

 

[LockeJaw]

you're one sick & twisted individual.

Did anyone actually read the story?! This is freaking awesome!

Supposedly they felt they must kill someone in order to "climb up into the realm" of Slenderman...

Here are some depictions of the mysterious figure known as "Slenderman"... which seems to combine all sorts of young nightmarish fears into one "creepy" fantasy monster...

Wiki says "The Slenderman is commonly said to stalk, abduct, or traumatize people, particularly children. The Slenderman is described as very tall and thin with unnaturally long, tentacle-like arms (or merely tentacles), which it can extend to intimidate or capture prey. It has a white, featureless head and appears to be wearing a dark suit and tie. The Slender Man is associated with the forest and has the ability to teleport."

This is the creature that they were willing to kill for in attempt to commune with!!! What devoted little acolytes!!! What twisted potential has gone to waste! Its a pity they will be imprisoned for this. Their sacrifice didn't even die! :-(

My God. Children willing to sacrifice human life through outright murder in attempt to "summon" a nightmarish phantom? I soooo can't help but to be impressed! Where were the other kids like that when I was little girl? Slenderman shows up a decade fucking late.

 

[LockeJaw]

No the bible does not permit conversion by force. You're thinking of Islam. That people in power perverted the bible to justify something that the bible does not permit is not a sign of the bible being bad, it shows that people in power use good things to manipulate the ignorant masses with it, and use good things to do bad things. Kind of like how liberals use the tactics they do, and why people like you fall for them every time. Help the poor? Free healthcare for everybody? They tug at your heartstrings so that you go along with their plan to gain more power & control over the citizenry. Open your eyes, it's all there for you to see....

The type of slavery practiced in the Early Americas is NOT biblically allowable.. Instead of typing it all out, I have a series of videos of a young man refuting that myth propagated by atheists PERFECTLY...with all the links & sources you need to confirm it's not biblically permissable right in the info bar.

Part 1-
Slavery in the bible TheAtheistPaladin 13 - YouTube

Part 2-
*Slavery in the bible TheAtheistPaladin 23 - YouTube

Part 3-
Slavery in the bible TheAtheistPaladin 3/3 - YouTube

You dont have to get rid of religion. Just stop letting sky fairies make the rules. If you wish to practice a religion that should be a personal thing and not something to enforce upon everyone else. I am not advocating morally subjective rule. I said we need to come up with some rules not based on a religion. Moral and religion are not the same thing. Anyone that tells you that is lying. You can believe in treating people correctly and not believe in a god.

The reason you believe the christians are responsible for freeing our ancestors is because you have not been taught the fact they used that very same religion to justify bringing our ancestors over here in the first place. You also fail to realize our ancestors were not freed because everyone suddenly repented and wanted to be good christians. Thats a very naive position to hold.. We were no longer needed and those same christians wanted our ancestors out of the country, anywhere else but here in the US now that they were done extracting the labor in order to make the US the economic power it became.

I dont need videos to tell me it was not allowable according to the bible . The point is that spreading christianity (religion) to "the savages" was the primary tool used to rationalize conquering and enslaving people. The Catholic church started it off with a papal bull declaring everyone else heathens, pagans etc and therefore subject to slavery.


Papal Bull Dum Diversas

Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas on 18 June, 1452. It authorised Alfonso V of Portugal to reduce any “Saracens (Muslims) and pagans and any other unbelievers” to perpetual slavery. This facilitated the Portuguese slave trade from West Africa.

The same pope wrote the bull Romanus Pontifex on January 5, 1455 to the same Alfonso. As a follow-up to the Dum diversas, it extended to the Catholic nations of Europe dominion over discovered lands during the Age of Discovery. Along with sanctifying the seizure of non-Christian lands, it encouraged the enslavement of native, non-Christian peoples in Africa and the New World.

How do you think the Christians rationalized subjecting people to the brand of slavery practised in the here in the Americas? Their religion told them it was OK.

 

[Iceweasel]

My God. Children willing to sacrifice human life through outright murder in attempt to "summon" a nightmarish phantom? I soooo can't help but to be impressed! Where were the other kids like that when I was little girl? Slenderman shows up a decade fucking late.

You're a decade away from being a little girl? It figures. Grow up.

 

[Asclepias]

No the bible does not permit conversion by force. You're thinking of Islam. That people in power perverted the bible to justify something that the bible does not permit is not a sign of the bible being bad, it shows that people in power use good things to manipulate the ignorant masses with it, and use good things to do bad things. Kind of like how liberals use the tactics they do, and why people like you fall for them every time. Help the poor? Free healthcare for everybody? They tug at your heartstrings so that you go along with their plan to gain more power & control over the citizenry. Open your eyes, it's all there for you to see....

The type of slavery practiced in the Early Americas is NOT biblically allowable.. Instead of typing it all out, I have a series of videos of a young man refuting that myth propagated by atheists PERFECTLY...with all the links & sources you need to confirm it's not biblically permissable right in the info bar.

Part 1-
Slavery in the bible TheAtheistPaladin 13 - YouTube

Part 2-
*Slavery in the bible TheAtheistPaladin 23 - YouTube

Part 3-
Slavery in the bible TheAtheistPaladin 3/3 - YouTube

I dont need videos to tell me it was not allowable according to the bible . The point is that spreading christianity (religion) to "the savages" was the primary tool used to rationalize conquering and enslaving people. The Catholic church started it off with a papal bull declaring everyone else heathens, pagans etc and therefore subject to slavery.


Papal Bull Dum Diversas

Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas on 18 June, 1452. It authorised Alfonso V of Portugal to reduce any “Saracens (Muslims) and pagans and any other unbelievers” to perpetual slavery. This facilitated the Portuguese slave trade from West Africa.

The same pope wrote the bull Romanus Pontifex on January 5, 1455 to the same Alfonso. As a follow-up to the Dum diversas, it extended to the Catholic nations of Europe dominion over discovered lands during the Age of Discovery. Along with sanctifying the seizure of non-Christian lands, it encouraged the enslavement of native, non-Christian peoples in Africa and the New World.

How do you think the Christians rationalized subjecting people to the brand of slavery practised in the here in the Americas? Their religion told them it was OK.

I never said the bible was bad. I said letting religions dictate rules for society is what is bad. I didnt get anything confused with Islam. Any history book will show you both religions forcefully converted people. Just because the christians did not come out and say it was force doesnt change the fact that entire civilizations were wiped out due to "voluntary learning" of christianity. All you have to do is see the pattern and the role christianity played in killing millions of people.

 

[LockeJaw]

If you think someone can be forced to become a Christian, you do not understand Christianity in the slightest. Wouldn't matter if someone made you get on your knees & swear to believe in Jesus...that's not how it works.

No the bible does not permit conversion by force. You're thinking of Islam. That people in power perverted the bible to justify something that the bible does not permit is not a sign of the bible being bad, it shows that people in power use good things to manipulate the ignorant masses with it, and use good things to do bad things. Kind of like how liberals use the tactics they do, and why people like you fall for them every time. Help the poor? Free healthcare for everybody? They tug at your heartstrings so that you go along with their plan to gain more power & control over the citizenry. Open your eyes, it's all there for you to see....

I dont need videos to tell me it was not allowable according to the bible . The point is that spreading christianity (religion) to "the savages" was the primary tool used to rationalize conquering and enslaving people. The Catholic church started it off with a papal bull declaring everyone else heathens, pagans etc and therefore subject to slavery.


Papal Bull Dum Diversas






How do you think the Christians rationalized subjecting people to the brand of slavery practised in the here in the Americas? Their religion told them it was OK.

I never said the bible was bad. I said letting religions dictate rules for society is what is bad. I didnt get anything confused with Islam. Any history book will show you both religions forcefully converted people. Just because the christians did not come out and say it was force doesnt change the fact that entire civilizations were wiped out due to "voluntary learning" of christianity. All you have to do is see the pattern and the role christianity played in killing millions of people.

 

[Peach]

If you think someone can be forced to become a Christian, you do not understand Christianity in the slightest. Wouldn't matter if someone made you get on your knees & swear to believe in Jesus...that's not how it works.
_____________________________________

On this issue, we AGREE.

 

[Asclepias]

If you think someone can be forced to become a Christian, you do not understand Christianity in the slightest. Wouldn't matter if someone made you get on your knees & swear to believe in Jesus...that's not how it works.

No the bible does not permit conversion by force. You're thinking of Islam. That people in power perverted the bible to justify something that the bible does not permit is not a sign of the bible being bad, it shows that people in power use good things to manipulate the ignorant masses with it, and use good things to do bad things. Kind of like how liberals use the tactics they do, and why people like you fall for them every time. Help the poor? Free healthcare for everybody? They tug at your heartstrings so that you go along with their plan to gain more power & control over the citizenry. Open your eyes, it's all there for you to see....

I never said the bible was bad. I said letting religions dictate rules for society is what is bad. I didnt get anything confused with Islam. Any history book will show you both religions forcefully converted people. Just because the christians did not come out and say it was force doesnt change the fact that entire civilizations were wiped out due to "voluntary learning" of christianity. All you have to do is see the pattern and the role christianity played in killing millions of people.

Maybe you can explain how the slaves and their ancestors became christian then? Are you claiming it was not forced upon them? How about the people in South America and Mexico? You are naive if you believe someone cannot force you to become a christian or rationalize anything to the point of acceptance..

 

[hazlnut]

There are also situations where you have two people who feed off each other, bring out the worst in each other, and in their kinship of perversion find solace and comfort, so an act like this seems "normal".