The Church And The Origins Of Western Civilization

[Moonglow]

The Church was so good that even the Europeans decided to throw off the control of the Church...The Church stood in the way of advancement in society...but eventually noticed it could get sympathy from many, but not political power it welded for centuries..

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh gawd.

Yet another thread of pc's goofy cut and paste "quotes", quote-mined from Harun Yahya.

I am certain that you and I both fervently hope for the day when you develop the ability to actually discuss the material that I post, and that you no longer have to use the same tired cliches over and over.

Best of luck.

I am certain that both you and I are aware that the entirety of your discussion is not discussion at all, but cutting and pasting "quotes".

Your silly "quotes" are the definition of tired cliches.

So cute...I refer to 'cliches' and you pick right up on that and repeat it.
So....I do teach you.



"...not discussion at all, but cutting and pasting "quotes".(sic...period belongs inside the quotation marks.)

So....you are unable to read?

That must be why you are never able to comment on the specifics that I post....much less the unassailable conclusions.

If you were honest, (not that I'm accusing you of being honest), you would acknowledge that the specifics you post are nothing more specific than silly "quotes" you quote-mine from Harun Yahya.

So.... We can agree you're incapable of actually composing a coherent argument.

Poor Hollie.....tsk., tsk., tsk.

Still no reference to anything in the thread.....

Help me with this....for clarity....are you a liar, or simply an imbecile?

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. I was waiting for disagreement over the claim that the church endorsed equal status for women.

Such as this:

'Didn't Paul state somewhat regressive views on women,' e.g., "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord."

Well, he did....but the context included repeated emphasis on the obligations of husbands to their wives. Thomas Cahill writes that in Paul we find "the only clarion affirmation of sexual equality in the whole of the Bible — and the first one ever to be made in any of the many literatures of our planet."
Thomas Cahill, "Desire of the Everlasting Hills: The World Before and After Jesus,"p. 141.



a. "In those days, you would have been hard put to find anyone who believed in 'sexual equality' in the modern sense, and the person who comes closest to it is, strangely enough, Paul."
A. N. Wilson, "Paul: The Mind of the Apostle,"p.140.

 

[JoeB131]

So how is it that women suffered from inequality for most of the Christian Era, then?

 

[Moonglow]

So how is it that women suffered from inequality for most of the Christian Era, then?

In the US it was until 1920...

 

[Hollie]

Oh gawd.

Yet another thread of pc's goofy cut and paste "quotes", quote-mined from Harun Yahya.

I am certain that you and I both fervently hope for the day when you develop the ability to actually discuss the material that I post, and that you no longer have to use the same tired cliches over and over.

Best of luck.

I am certain that both you and I are aware that the entirety of your discussion is not discussion at all, but cutting and pasting "quotes".

Your silly "quotes" are the definition of tired cliches.

So cute...I refer to 'cliches' and you pick right up on that and repeat it.
So....I do teach you.



"...not discussion at all, but cutting and pasting "quotes".(sic...period belongs inside the quotation marks.)

So....you are unable to read?

That must be why you are never able to comment on the specifics that I post....much less the unassailable conclusions.

If you were honest, (not that I'm accusing you of being honest), you would acknowledge that the specifics you post are nothing more specific than silly "quotes" you quote-mine from Harun Yahya.

So.... We can agree you're incapable of actually composing a coherent argument.

Poor Hollie.....tsk., tsk., tsk.

Still no reference to anything in the thread.....

Help me with this....for clarity....are you a liar, or simply an imbecile?

You poor, dear.

You always get angry and reactive when your cutting and pasting is ridiculed for being an exercise in intellectual Sloth. However, understanding your limitations, it's even worse when you try to string words together into sentences.

 

[Hollie]

9. I was waiting for disagreement over the claim that the church endorsed equal status for women.

Such as this:

'Didn't Paul state somewhat regressive views on women,' e.g., "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord."

Well, he did....but the context included repeated emphasis on the obligations of husbands to their wives. Thomas Cahill writes that in Paul we find "the only clarion affirmation of sexual equality in the whole of the Bible — and the first one ever to be made in any of the many literatures of our planet."
Thomas Cahill, "Desire of the Everlasting Hills: The World Before and After Jesus,"p. 141.

a. "In those days, you would have been hard put to find anyone who believed in 'sexual equality' in the modern sense, and the person who comes closest to it is, strangely enough, Paul."
A. N. Wilson, "Paul: The Mind of the Apostle,"p.140.

Women Are Defective Males, The Calculated Denigration of Women by the Catholic Church and its Disastrous Consequences Today

http://www.amazon.com/Defective-Cal...rous-Consequences/dp/1427646090&tag=ff0d01-20

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh gawd.

Yet another thread of pc's goofy cut and paste "quotes", quote-mined from Harun Yahya.

I am certain that you and I both fervently hope for the day when you develop the ability to actually discuss the material that I post, and that you no longer have to use the same tired cliches over and over.

Best of luck.

I am certain that both you and I are aware that the entirety of your discussion is not discussion at all, but cutting and pasting "quotes".

Your silly "quotes" are the definition of tired cliches.

So cute...I refer to 'cliches' and you pick right up on that and repeat it.
So....I do teach you.



"...not discussion at all, but cutting and pasting "quotes".(sic...period belongs inside the quotation marks.)

So....you are unable to read?

That must be why you are never able to comment on the specifics that I post....much less the unassailable conclusions.

If you were honest, (not that I'm accusing you of being honest), you would acknowledge that the specifics you post are nothing more specific than silly "quotes" you quote-mine from Harun Yahya.

So.... We can agree you're incapable of actually composing a coherent argument.

Poor Hollie.....tsk., tsk., tsk.

Still no reference to anything in the thread.....

Help me with this....for clarity....are you a liar, or simply an imbecile?

You poor, dear.

You always get angry and reactive when your cutting and pasting is ridiculed for being an exercise in intellectual Sloth. However, understanding your limitations, it's even worse when you try to string words together into sentences.

Still not a word about anything posted?

Obviously you aren't a fan of mine, but it is increasingly clear that the reason is that you cannot deal with my postings.

But you can prove me wrong.....just challenge anything I've posted: let's see a cogent response.




Waiting.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[

"Romans actually had a pretty sensible series of laws."
Where do you get your history.....comic books?

Theodosius the Great, was Roman Emperor from 379 to 395. Theodosius was the last emperor to rule over both the eastern and the western halves of the Roman Empire."
Theodosius I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3." In 390 the population of Thessalonica rioted in complaint against the presence of the local Gothic garrison. The garrison commander was killed in the violence, soTheodosius ordered the Goths to kill all the spectators in the circus as retaliation; Theodoret, a contemporary witness to these events, reports:

"... the anger of the Emperor rose to the highest pitch, and he gratified his vindictive desire for vengeance by unsheathing the sword most unjustly and tyrannically against all, slaying the innocent and guilty alike. It is said seven thousand perishedwithout any forms of law, and without even having judicial sentence passed upon them; but that, like ears of wheat in the time of harvest, they were alike cut down."
Ibid.

Aren't you kind of defeating your own argument here? Theodosius was one of the Christian Emperors after Constantine the Great (notice how all these guys call themselves "The Great"?) made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire.

Not surprisingly, Rome rapidly descended into barbarism after the Christians took over.

Really?


Now, my pal, ErroneousJoe writes glowingly about Roman culture....

He might have missed this:

"The overwhelming opinion about the Romans in academic – and wider – circles today is hostile. The Romans are seen as militaristic imperialists, who owed their success to their brutality and their militarism."
Why Rome Barbarism and Civilization



10. How about reverence for human life, Rome vs the contemporary chuch?

At the opposite end of the spectrum we find the gladiatorial games. Crowds that included the very best citizens exulted as scores of men, and sometimes many hundreds, slaughtered one another for fleeting fame and honor. Not that they always had much choice in the matter.

Elaine Pagels describes the action at the Roman amphitheater in the second century: "The spectators cheered the men who recklessly courted death, and thrilled to the moment of the death blow. The crowd would go wild when a defeated gladiator defiantly thrust out his neck to his antagonist's sword, and they jeered and hooted when a loser bolted in panic."
Pagels, "The Origin o f Satan," p. 115


a. ' Christians deplored this entertainment, and not merely because there was always the chance that they might themselves someday wind up as prey. Rather, they were repulsed by the way this spectacle debased human life.

When the Emperor Constantine outlawed gladiator games in the fourth century (or attempted to; they flourished for decades afterward), he did so as an affirmation of Christian values.'
"Christianity on Trial," Carroll and Shiflett, p. 6-7

 

[Hollie]

Oh gawd.

Yet another thread of pc's goofy cut and paste "quotes", quote-mined from Harun Yahya.

I am certain that you and I both fervently hope for the day when you develop the ability to actually discuss the material that I post, and that you no longer have to use the same tired cliches over and over.

Best of luck.

I am certain that both you and I are aware that the entirety of your discussion is not discussion at all, but cutting and pasting "quotes".

Your silly "quotes" are the definition of tired cliches.

So cute...I refer to 'cliches' and you pick right up on that and repeat it.
So....I do teach you.



"...not discussion at all, but cutting and pasting "quotes".(sic...period belongs inside the quotation marks.)

So....you are unable to read?

That must be why you are never able to comment on the specifics that I post....much less the unassailable conclusions.

If you were honest, (not that I'm accusing you of being honest), you would acknowledge that the specifics you post are nothing more specific than silly "quotes" you quote-mine from Harun Yahya.

So.... We can agree you're incapable of actually composing a coherent argument.

Poor Hollie.....tsk., tsk., tsk.

Still no reference to anything in the thread.....

Help me with this....for clarity....are you a liar, or simply an imbecile?

You poor, dear.

You always get angry and reactive when your cutting and pasting is ridiculed for being an exercise in intellectual Sloth. However, understanding your limitations, it's even worse when you try to string words together into sentences.

Still not a word about anything posted?

Obviously you aren't a fan of mine, but it is increasingly clear that the reason is that you cannot deal with my postings.

But you can prove me wrong.....just challenge anything I've posted: let's see a cogent response.




Waiting.

Prove you wrong?

You did nothing but cut and paste a hodgepodge of "quotes" that you scoured from sources as flimsy as wiki. If the authors of the "quotes" were available to defend them, that would be another matter.

What we're left with are your edited and parsed "quotes" which you are hopeless to defend.

Waiting.... for you to scour Harun Yahya for more silliness.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh gawd.

Yet another thread of pc's goofy cut and paste "quotes", quote-mined from Harun Yahya.

I am certain that you and I both fervently hope for the day when you develop the ability to actually discuss the material that I post, and that you no longer have to use the same tired cliches over and over.

Best of luck.

I am certain that both you and I are aware that the entirety of your discussion is not discussion at all, but cutting and pasting "quotes".

Your silly "quotes" are the definition of tired cliches.

So cute...I refer to 'cliches' and you pick right up on that and repeat it.
So....I do teach you.



"...not discussion at all, but cutting and pasting "quotes".(sic...period belongs inside the quotation marks.)

So....you are unable to read?

That must be why you are never able to comment on the specifics that I post....much less the unassailable conclusions.

If you were honest, (not that I'm accusing you of being honest), you would acknowledge that the specifics you post are nothing more specific than silly "quotes" you quote-mine from Harun Yahya.

So.... We can agree you're incapable of actually composing a coherent argument.

Poor Hollie.....tsk., tsk., tsk.

Still no reference to anything in the thread.....

Help me with this....for clarity....are you a liar, or simply an imbecile?

You poor, dear.

You always get angry and reactive when your cutting and pasting is ridiculed for being an exercise in intellectual Sloth. However, understanding your limitations, it's even worse when you try to string words together into sentences.

Still not a word about anything posted?

Obviously you aren't a fan of mine, but it is increasingly clear that the reason is that you cannot deal with my postings.

But you can prove me wrong.....just challenge anything I've posted: let's see a cogent response.




Waiting.

Prove you wrong?

You did nothing but cut and paste a hodgepodge of "quotes" that you scoured from sources as flimsy as wiki. If the authors of the "quotes" were available to defend them, that would be another matter.

What we're left with are your edited and parsed "quotes" which you are hopeless to defend.

Waiting.... for you to scour Harun Yahya for more silliness.

C'mon....you can't be as stupid as you appear......never any comment on the material, the ideas, the points made in the posts?

But you can prove me wrong.....just challenge anything I've posted: let's see a cogent response.



Still waiting.

 

[Hollie]

Oh gawd.

Yet another thread of pc's goofy cut and paste "quotes", quote-mined from Harun Yahya.

I am certain that you and I both fervently hope for the day when you develop the ability to actually discuss the material that I post, and that you no longer have to use the same tired cliches over and over.

Best of luck.

I am certain that both you and I are aware that the entirety of your discussion is not discussion at all, but cutting and pasting "quotes".

Your silly "quotes" are the definition of tired cliches.

So cute...I refer to 'cliches' and you pick right up on that and repeat it.
So....I do teach you.



"...not discussion at all, but cutting and pasting "quotes".(sic...period belongs inside the quotation marks.)

So....you are unable to read?

That must be why you are never able to comment on the specifics that I post....much less the unassailable conclusions.

If you were honest, (not that I'm accusing you of being honest), you would acknowledge that the specifics you post are nothing more specific than silly "quotes" you quote-mine from Harun Yahya.

So.... We can agree you're incapable of actually composing a coherent argument.

Poor Hollie.....tsk., tsk., tsk.

Still no reference to anything in the thread.....

Help me with this....for clarity....are you a liar, or simply an imbecile?

You poor, dear.

You always get angry and reactive when your cutting and pasting is ridiculed for being an exercise in intellectual Sloth. However, understanding your limitations, it's even worse when you try to string words together into sentences.

Still not a word about anything posted?

Obviously you aren't a fan of mine, but it is increasingly clear that the reason is that you cannot deal with my postings.

But you can prove me wrong.....just challenge anything I've posted: let's see a cogent response.




Waiting.

Prove you wrong?

You did nothing but cut and paste a hodgepodge of "quotes" that you scoured from sources as flimsy as wiki. If the authors of the "quotes" were available to defend them, that would be another matter.

What we're left with are your edited and parsed "quotes" which you are hopeless to defend.

Waiting.... for you to scour Harun Yahya for more silliness.

C'mon....you can't be as stupid as you appear......never any comment on the material, the ideas, the points made in the posts?

But you can prove me wrong.....just challenge anything I've posted: let's see a cogent response.



Still waiting.

C'mon. You really are that stupid. It's comically tragic that you dump these silly threads in multiple forums but you're unable to actually offer any coherent comment on what you're cutting and pasting.

There's really nothing to challenge when you spammers do nothing more than scour the web for "quotes" that are edited, parsed and out of context. That appeals to people such as yourself who are absent any ability to offer a coherent comment on what they're cutting and pasting.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh gawd.

Yet another thread of pc's goofy cut and paste "quotes", quote-mined from Harun Yahya.

I am certain that you and I both fervently hope for the day when you develop the ability to actually discuss the material that I post, and that you no longer have to use the same tired cliches over and over.

Best of luck.

I am certain that both you and I are aware that the entirety of your discussion is not discussion at all, but cutting and pasting "quotes".

Your silly "quotes" are the definition of tired cliches.

So cute...I refer to 'cliches' and you pick right up on that and repeat it.
So....I do teach you.



"...not discussion at all, but cutting and pasting "quotes".(sic...period belongs inside the quotation marks.)

So....you are unable to read?

That must be why you are never able to comment on the specifics that I post....much less the unassailable conclusions.

If you were honest, (not that I'm accusing you of being honest), you would acknowledge that the specifics you post are nothing more specific than silly "quotes" you quote-mine from Harun Yahya.

So.... We can agree you're incapable of actually composing a coherent argument.

Poor Hollie.....tsk., tsk., tsk.

Still no reference to anything in the thread.....

Help me with this....for clarity....are you a liar, or simply an imbecile?

You poor, dear.

You always get angry and reactive when your cutting and pasting is ridiculed for being an exercise in intellectual Sloth. However, understanding your limitations, it's even worse when you try to string words together into sentences.

Still not a word about anything posted?

Obviously you aren't a fan of mine, but it is increasingly clear that the reason is that you cannot deal with my postings.

But you can prove me wrong.....just challenge anything I've posted: let's see a cogent response.




Waiting.

Prove you wrong?

You did nothing but cut and paste a hodgepodge of "quotes" that you scoured from sources as flimsy as wiki. If the authors of the "quotes" were available to defend them, that would be another matter.

What we're left with are your edited and parsed "quotes" which you are hopeless to defend.

Waiting.... for you to scour Harun Yahya for more silliness.

C'mon....you can't be as stupid as you appear......never any comment on the material, the ideas, the points made in the posts?

But you can prove me wrong.....just challenge anything I've posted: let's see a cogent response.



Still waiting.

C'mon. You really are that stupid. It's comically tragic that you dump these silly threads in multiple forums but you're unable to actually offer any coherent comment on what you're cutting and pasting.

There's really nothing to challenge when you spammers do nothing more than scour the web for "quotes" that are edited, parsed and out of context. That appeals to people such as yourself who are absent any ability to offer a coherent comment on what they're cutting and pasting.

I must admit that I get a kick out of revealing what a dunce you are.


But you can prove me wrong.....just challenge anything I've posted: let's see a cogent response.



Still waiting.

 

[Hollie]

Oh gawd.

Yet another thread of pc's goofy cut and paste "quotes", quote-mined from Harun Yahya.

I am certain that you and I both fervently hope for the day when you develop the ability to actually discuss the material that I post, and that you no longer have to use the same tired cliches over and over.

Best of luck.

I am certain that both you and I are aware that the entirety of your discussion is not discussion at all, but cutting and pasting "quotes".

Your silly "quotes" are the definition of tired cliches.

So cute...I refer to 'cliches' and you pick right up on that and repeat it.
So....I do teach you.



"...not discussion at all, but cutting and pasting "quotes".(sic...period belongs inside the quotation marks.)

So....you are unable to read?

That must be why you are never able to comment on the specifics that I post....much less the unassailable conclusions.

If you were honest, (not that I'm accusing you of being honest), you would acknowledge that the specifics you post are nothing more specific than silly "quotes" you quote-mine from Harun Yahya.

So.... We can agree you're incapable of actually composing a coherent argument.

Poor Hollie.....tsk., tsk., tsk.

Still no reference to anything in the thread.....

Help me with this....for clarity....are you a liar, or simply an imbecile?

You poor, dear.

You always get angry and reactive when your cutting and pasting is ridiculed for being an exercise in intellectual Sloth. However, understanding your limitations, it's even worse when you try to string words together into sentences.

Still not a word about anything posted?

Obviously you aren't a fan of mine, but it is increasingly clear that the reason is that you cannot deal with my postings.

But you can prove me wrong.....just challenge anything I've posted: let's see a cogent response.




Waiting.

Prove you wrong?

You did nothing but cut and paste a hodgepodge of "quotes" that you scoured from sources as flimsy as wiki. If the authors of the "quotes" were available to defend them, that would be another matter.

What we're left with are your edited and parsed "quotes" which you are hopeless to defend.

Waiting.... for you to scour Harun Yahya for more silliness.

C'mon....you can't be as stupid as you appear......never any comment on the material, the ideas, the points made in the posts?

But you can prove me wrong.....just challenge anything I've posted: let's see a cogent response.



Still waiting.

C'mon. You really are that stupid. It's comically tragic that you dump these silly threads in multiple forums but you're unable to actually offer any coherent comment on what you're cutting and pasting.

There's really nothing to challenge when you spammers do nothing more than scour the web for "quotes" that are edited, parsed and out of context. That appeals to people such as yourself who are absent any ability to offer a coherent comment on what they're cutting and pasting.

I must admit that I get a kick out of revealing what a dunce you are.


But you can prove me wrong.....just challenge anything I've posted: let's see a cogent response.



Still waiting.

Let's see you provide some more cut and paste spam.




Waiting.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh gawd.

Yet another thread of pc's goofy cut and paste "quotes", quote-mined from Harun Yahya.

I am certain that you and I both fervently hope for the day when you develop the ability to actually discuss the material that I post, and that you no longer have to use the same tired cliches over and over.

Best of luck.

I am certain that both you and I are aware that the entirety of your discussion is not discussion at all, but cutting and pasting "quotes".

Your silly "quotes" are the definition of tired cliches.

So cute...I refer to 'cliches' and you pick right up on that and repeat it.
So....I do teach you.



"...not discussion at all, but cutting and pasting "quotes".(sic...period belongs inside the quotation marks.)

So....you are unable to read?

That must be why you are never able to comment on the specifics that I post....much less the unassailable conclusions.

If you were honest, (not that I'm accusing you of being honest), you would acknowledge that the specifics you post are nothing more specific than silly "quotes" you quote-mine from Harun Yahya.

So.... We can agree you're incapable of actually composing a coherent argument.

Poor Hollie.....tsk., tsk., tsk.

Still no reference to anything in the thread.....

Help me with this....for clarity....are you a liar, or simply an imbecile?

You poor, dear.

You always get angry and reactive when your cutting and pasting is ridiculed for being an exercise in intellectual Sloth. However, understanding your limitations, it's even worse when you try to string words together into sentences.

Still not a word about anything posted?

Obviously you aren't a fan of mine, but it is increasingly clear that the reason is that you cannot deal with my postings.

But you can prove me wrong.....just challenge anything I've posted: let's see a cogent response.




Waiting.

Prove you wrong?

You did nothing but cut and paste a hodgepodge of "quotes" that you scoured from sources as flimsy as wiki. If the authors of the "quotes" were available to defend them, that would be another matter.

What we're left with are your edited and parsed "quotes" which you are hopeless to defend.

Waiting.... for you to scour Harun Yahya for more silliness.

C'mon....you can't be as stupid as you appear......never any comment on the material, the ideas, the points made in the posts?

But you can prove me wrong.....just challenge anything I've posted: let's see a cogent response.



Still waiting.

C'mon. You really are that stupid. It's comically tragic that you dump these silly threads in multiple forums but you're unable to actually offer any coherent comment on what you're cutting and pasting.

There's really nothing to challenge when you spammers do nothing more than scour the web for "quotes" that are edited, parsed and out of context. That appeals to people such as yourself who are absent any ability to offer a coherent comment on what they're cutting and pasting.

I must admit that I get a kick out of revealing what a dunce you are.


But you can prove me wrong.....just challenge anything I've posted: let's see a cogent response.



Still waiting.

Let's see you provide some more cut and paste spam.




Waiting.

What??? You still haven't been able to come up with any comment on the posts?


I know you'd love to be able to respond....you just don't have the ability.

Let me put some more together on this theme, and give you another chance....

Now....gear up!

 

[Hollie]

Oh gawd.

Yet another thread of pc's goofy cut and paste "quotes", quote-mined from Harun Yahya.

I am certain that you and I both fervently hope for the day when you develop the ability to actually discuss the material that I post, and that you no longer have to use the same tired cliches over and over.

Best of luck.

I am certain that both you and I are aware that the entirety of your discussion is not discussion at all, but cutting and pasting "quotes".

Your silly "quotes" are the definition of tired cliches.

So cute...I refer to 'cliches' and you pick right up on that and repeat it.
So....I do teach you.



"...not discussion at all, but cutting and pasting "quotes".(sic...period belongs inside the quotation marks.)

So....you are unable to read?

That must be why you are never able to comment on the specifics that I post....much less the unassailable conclusions.

If you were honest, (not that I'm accusing you of being honest), you would acknowledge that the specifics you post are nothing more specific than silly "quotes" you quote-mine from Harun Yahya.

So.... We can agree you're incapable of actually composing a coherent argument.

Poor Hollie.....tsk., tsk., tsk.

Still no reference to anything in the thread.....

Help me with this....for clarity....are you a liar, or simply an imbecile?

You poor, dear.

You always get angry and reactive when your cutting and pasting is ridiculed for being an exercise in intellectual Sloth. However, understanding your limitations, it's even worse when you try to string words together into sentences.

Still not a word about anything posted?

Obviously you aren't a fan of mine, but it is increasingly clear that the reason is that you cannot deal with my postings.

But you can prove me wrong.....just challenge anything I've posted: let's see a cogent response.




Waiting.

Prove you wrong?

You did nothing but cut and paste a hodgepodge of "quotes" that you scoured from sources as flimsy as wiki. If the authors of the "quotes" were available to defend them, that would be another matter.

What we're left with are your edited and parsed "quotes" which you are hopeless to defend.

Waiting.... for you to scour Harun Yahya for more silliness.

C'mon....you can't be as stupid as you appear......never any comment on the material, the ideas, the points made in the posts?

But you can prove me wrong.....just challenge anything I've posted: let's see a cogent response.



Still waiting.

C'mon. You really are that stupid. It's comically tragic that you dump these silly threads in multiple forums but you're unable to actually offer any coherent comment on what you're cutting and pasting.

There's really nothing to challenge when you spammers do nothing more than scour the web for "quotes" that are edited, parsed and out of context. That appeals to people such as yourself who are absent any ability to offer a coherent comment on what they're cutting and pasting.

I must admit that I get a kick out of revealing what a dunce you are.


But you can prove me wrong.....just challenge anything I've posted: let's see a cogent response.



Still waiting.

Let's see you provide some more cut and paste spam.




Waiting.

What??? You still haven't been able to come up with any comment on the posts?


I know you'd love to be able to respond....you just don't have the ability.

Let me put some more together on this theme, and give you another chance....

Now....gear up!

Oh my. Are you scouring Harun Yahya for more edited and parsed "quotes" you can spam this thread with?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Seems that this has become "the church's values vs those of the Roman Empire"....

OK- I can make that argument.



11. In "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," Edward Gibbon hardly went out of his way of defend Christians, but even Gibbon conceded the impressive ethical standards of early Christians. He listed their "pure and austere morals" as the fourth of five reasons for Christianity's remarkable growth before Constantine." (He is quoted in Bertrand Russell, "History of Western Philosophy,"p.350.)


What he doesn't mention is that Christians rejected the practice of infanticide, that they opposed the use of children for sexual pleasure, advanced women's status, continued the Jewish tradition of concern for the poor- but they did all of those things, as well.





12. A word about the killing of infants, often by simply abandoning them on a dung heap: boys were disposed of when deformed, girls when their births were inconvenient. Rodney Stark highlights this practice within his book "The Rise of Christianity" when he quotes from an ancient letter from a pagan named Hilarion to his pregnant wife Alis:

“I ask and beg you to take care of our baby son, and as soon as I receive payment I shall send it up to you. If you are delivered of a child [before I come home], if it is a boy keep it, if a girl discard it” (pg. 97-98).





13. So, the ancients lacked respect for human life....and, of course, this is the aspect that religion has provided for civilization.


Yet, in America today we have a President who agreed with the earlier, the atavistic view. “Not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide,” Gingrich said.

Gingrich was presumably referencing Obama’s opposition to Illinois’ proposed version of a “born alive” law, intended to require doctors to administer immediate medical care to any infant that survived an intended abortion....

FactCheck.org found holes in Obama’s explanations as to why he did not support the “born alive” legislation."
FACT CHECK Gingrich Claim on Obama Infanticide Vote A Stretch - NationalJournal.com




It also occurs that environmentalism is a thinly veiled adoption of the pagan belief in Gaia, mother earth.....



Seems the pendulum can swing backwards as well as forward.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. Seems that the mission of militant secularists is to banish religion from the public space. ."

Is that worse than the mission of religious extremists?

 

[JakeStarkey]

And PC is so deep in her own mess she must think it is raining butt holes.

Western civilization, built on Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian values, which have changed mightily in more than 2000 years. We no longer crucify people (though ISIS does), enfranchised minorities and women, expanded civil liberties, moved into the 21st century recognizing orientations, and so forth

The far right conservative Christians opposed all of that other than crucifixion perhaps.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Really?

Now, my pal, ErroneousJoe writes glowingly about Roman culture....

He might have missed this:

"The overwhelming opinion about the Romans in academic – and wider – circles today is hostile. The Romans are seen as militaristic imperialists, who owed their success to their brutality and their militarism."
Why Rome Barbarism and Civilization

10. How about reverence for human life, Rome vs the contemporary chuch?

At the opposite end of the spectrum we find the gladiatorial games. Crowds that included the very best citizens exulted as scores of men, and sometimes many hundreds, slaughtered one another for fleeting fame and honor. Not that they always had much choice in the matter.

Elaine Pagels describes the action at the Roman amphitheater in the second century: "The spectators cheered the men who recklessly courted death, and thrilled to the moment of the death blow. The crowd would go wild when a defeated gladiator defiantly thrust out his neck to his antagonist's sword, and they jeered and hooted when a loser bolted in panic."
Pagels, "The Origin o f Satan," p. 115


a. ' Christians deplored this entertainment, and not merely because there was always the chance that they might themselves someday wind up as prey. Rather, they were repulsed by the way this spectacle debased human life.

When the Emperor Constantine outlawed gladiator games in the fourth century (or attempted to; they flourished for decades afterward), he did so as an affirmation of Christian values.'
"Christianity on Trial," Carroll and Shiflett, p. 6-7

Christians being thrown to the lions is a myth.

And the Christians had no problem with witch burnings and public executions of heretics. Thousands of their fellow Christians were slaughtered in wars between the Catholics and heretics such as the Monophysites and the Arians.