Zone1 What makes Christianity different from other religions?

[Paradoxical#1]

Actually banning religion or banning atheism is a violation of the first amendment and no real conservative would even contemplate it let alone promote it as you have done. Ergo you are no conservative.

Your cult burned people at the stake for a non belief.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

I certainly don’t expect members of either party to be a part of any particular religion. 70% of Democrats identify as Christian, although you’d never know that to hear MAGA talk.

If God exists, why doesn’t he stop the horrors. Or the rape and abuse of innocents, or the genocides and progroms against his Chosen People, etc.

I agree.

 

[BreezeWood]

The Romans murdered Jesus. He was crucified by the Romans, not buy the Jews.

For someone who claims to be a Christian, you have no concept of the history of the church.

you know better - silver coins and a suicide for their betrayal says you are either a sympathizer or live in a self induced hypnotic state ... the jews murdered jesus, their way - * they worship the liar moses and their false commandments et al.

as much a christian as jesus was a jew ...

 

[BreezeWood]

why do you think these 4 were not Jews?

they were heavenly and openly defied moses and judaism substantiation enough they were not judaism they sought their own true selves as the heavenly religion of antiquity to triumph over evil for their own self determination granted a&e as the goal for judgement and admission to the everlasting. the magi were sent to protect them, stone throwers beware.

4th century christianity begins its fallacies from the very beginning of the 1st century events to the very end.

 

[ding]

You're a guy who wants to label others because you want to pigeonhole beliefs and nonbeliefs because you are rigid and won't change a belief you have because your own beliefs give you solace and comfort.

No. I’m a guy pointing out the obvious. That anyone who openly promotes the banning of religion in direct violation of the first amendment is neither a patriot or a conservative.

 

[ding]

Your cult burned people at the stake for a non belief.

And you believe that is your justification for banning religion?

How many more bill of rights do you propose shitting on?

Do you have a link to these supposed non-belief burning’s?

 

[ding]

I'm European. Both my parents were Roman Catholic. I was baptized and confirmed, and we had optional religious studies in school — which I actually took until I was fifteen.

Now, our religious education here isn't like the more dogmatic version often seen in the U.S. It’s more allegorical — mostly using the Bible to teach moral reflection, less focused on literal belief. But still, it’s rooted in Christian tradition.

What put me on the road to atheism was a simple question.

I asked my religious teacher:
"If I reject the miracles but still think the life of Christ is worth aspiring to — does that make me religious?"
This kind, thoughtful man looked at me and said plainly:
“No.”

And that answer stuck with me.

He was right. You can’t call yourself religious if you reject the dogma. Once I saw that clearly, I didn’t look back.

That’s a little more than dogma if you ask me. If you don’t believe Jesus is God, you probably shouldn’t be a Christian. But that’s no reason to become an atheist. That’s flawed logic.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

No. I’m a guy pointing out the obvious. That anyone who openly promotes the banning of religion in direct violation of the first amendment is neither a patriot or a conservative.

Would you ban beheadings by Muslims of the unbelievers when they start taking over because of open borders and inclusion?

 

[Paradoxical#1]

And you believe that is your justification for banning religion?

How many more bill of rights do you propose shitting on?

Do you have a link to these supposed non-belief burning’s?

Now they just ban non beliefs and use a surrogate devil to do your dirty work.

 

[ding]

Would you ban beheadings by Muslims of the unbelievers when they start taking over because of open borders and inclusion?

You really do like bad analogies. I guess if you shit on the 1st amendment there’s nothing you won’t stoop to doing.

 

[ding]

Now they just ban non beliefs and use a surrogate devil to do your dirty work.

That’s quite the conspiracy theory you have going there.

 

[BreezeWood]

Do you have a link to these supposed non-belief burning’s?

who are you kidding ...

the persecution and victimization of the innocent has been their only way to survive the forgeries lies and fallacies of all three desert bibles - false commandments hereditary idolatry claimed heavenly personifications that never occurred religions of apartheid et al - the crucifiers must be brought to justice to bring heavenly paradise back to garden earth.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

who are you kidding ...

View attachment 1136351

the persecution and victimization of the innocent has been their only way to survive the forgeries lies and fallacies of all three desert bibles - false commandments hereditary idolatry claimed heavenly personifications that never occurred religions of apartheid et al - the crucifiers must be brought to justice to bring heavenly paradise back to garden earth.

Enforced belief via burnings, beheadings, torture were a strong visual reminder that you best believe what the high priests told you was true, or else. No one leaves a hanging, a beheading, torture in the town square that was as a result of some brazen individual daring to question the narrative of those humans elevated to superiority by fiat and able to wear expensive robes and judge those who are brought before the tribunal.

Even though that is no longer done, our genes carry the memories of the past and warn us not to mess with those "in authority". This is precisely why they are granted titles and wear robes.

 

[forkup]

That’s a little more than dogma if you ask me. If you don’t believe Jesus is God, you probably shouldn’t be a Christian. But that’s no reason to become an atheist. That’s flawed logic.

Your habit of ignoring what I actually say in order to land the point you want to make is both striking and revealing. What do you get out of it? It doesn’t convince anyone — and it’s not even a strong point if you have to misrepresent mine to make it.

Let’s be clear:

First — I never said that moment made me an atheist. I said it put me on the road to atheism. What it did was open the space to ask whether Christianity had any validity outside of what was carefully taught in class.
So I read the Bible myself — critically, without the filtered context — and I found it wanting. Often deeply disturbing. That’s what happens when you stop reading cherry-picked verses and look at the full picture.

Second — once again, you’ve ignored the actual point I made about you. You’re not just comfortable with your belief — you’re incapable of doubting it. That’s what I meant, and you sidestepped it by simply restating your comfort with my disbelief — which was never in question.
You’re free to ignore the substance of what I’m saying. But don’t think I don’t notice when you do.

 

[forkup]

That’s a little more than dogma if you ask me. If you don’t believe Jesus is God, you probably shouldn’t be a Christian. But that’s no reason to become an atheist. That’s flawed logic.

I wasn’t planning to respond at first. I noticed the misread, but I let it go. This is part of a familiar pattern — not just from you personally, but from a lot of believers.

You’re not engaging what I said — you’re reshaping it into something easier to dismiss. And I don’t think that’s malicious. I think it’s protective.

That’s the core of my point about belief: it often isn’t grounded in evidence, but in the need for certainty. Not knowing — sitting with that kind of ambiguity — is uncomfortable. For some, it’s unbearable. So belief becomes a shield. Not just against doubt, but against the identity crisis that doubt might trigger.

That’s not a moral failing. It’s a human response. But it’s also why these conversations tend to loop. You’re not defending a conclusion — you’re defending a psychological necessity.

I get it. Truly. But let’s not pretend it’s about logic.

I’ll leave it there.

 

[forkup]

Your synopsis is the most spot on I have ever seen by any poster, and you get the "Winner" tag from me. Why others haven't realized what you posted baffles me, but when you look at humanity and its progress, it has not stepped out of the primitive days yet. I wrote a short book, not yet published, of how human indoctrination takes place, and it starts with the caveman and progresses to unified tribes and then to Greek gods to explain calamity and hundreds if not thousands of other invented god concepts. Christianity plagiarized and borrowed from those. You are correct that the Roman Empire adopted it and if it weren't for emperor Constantine, a ruthless mass murderer who killed his own wife and son (and the Catholics made him a venerated saint) who saw that Christianity would be an aid to him in controlling the populace to keep it in fear that there was an invisible god enforcer.

The high priests then went into warp speed after languishing for 300 years because many people believed Jesus was "just" a son of God. Inventing the Trinity was a master stroke and Constantine lit the fuse of what would become billions of believers today by showering the priests with new churches, land and money. As it happens religion became government and became ruthless and unfortunate as it is, killing and torturing people for not believing is a very powerful tool to create belief in new babies, passed down through the genes of all those who witnessed the earthly horror of not believing.

I meant to ask you more about your book — specifically how tightly you connect indoctrination with religion. Because to me, that feels a bit narrow.

Religion seems more like a vehicle than a root cause. The psychology behind belief — the need for certainty, identity, and belonging — feels broader, more social. You can see the same mechanics in political ideologies, nationalism, even brand loyalty.

So I’d be curious whether your take is more historical, or if you dive into the underlying cognitive scaffolding too.

 

[ding]

Your habit of ignoring what I actually say in order to land the point you want to make is both striking and revealing. What do you get out of it? It doesn’t convince anyone — and it’s not even a strong point if you have to misrepresent mine to make it.

Let’s be clear:

First — I never said that moment made me an atheist. I said it put me on the road to atheism. What it did was open the space to ask whether Christianity had any validity outside of what was carefully taught in class.
So I read the Bible myself — critically, without the filtered context — and I found it wanting. Often deeply disturbing. That’s what happens when you stop reading cherry-picked verses and look at the full picture.

Second — once again, you’ve ignored the actual point I made about you. You’re not just comfortable with your belief — you’re incapable of doubting it. That’s what I meant, and you sidestepped it by simply restating your comfort with my disbelief — which was never in question.
You’re free to ignore the substance of what I’m saying. But don’t think I don’t notice when you do.

But I did read what you wrote and I responded to it. You shouldn’t be a Christian if you don’t believe Jesus is God but that doesn’t mean you have to be an atheist.

 

[ding]

I wasn’t planning to respond at first. I noticed the misread, but I let it go. This is part of a familiar pattern — not just from you personally, but from a lot of believers.

You’re not engaging what I said — you’re reshaping it into something easier to dismiss. And I don’t think that’s malicious. I think it’s protective.

That’s the core of my point about belief: it often isn’t grounded in evidence, but in the need for certainty. Not knowing — sitting with that kind of ambiguity — is uncomfortable. For some, it’s unbearable. So belief becomes a shield. Not just against doubt, but against the identity crisis that doubt might trigger.

That’s not a moral failing. It’s a human response. But it’s also why these conversations tend to loop. You’re not defending a conclusion — you’re defending a psychological necessity.

I get it. Truly. But let’s not pretend it’s about logic.

I’ll leave it there.

I am engaging what you said just not in the way you want me to.

 

[ding]

who are you kidding ...

View attachment 1136351

the persecution and victimization of the innocent has been their only way to survive the forgeries lies and fallacies of all three desert bibles - false commandments hereditary idolatry claimed heavenly personifications that never occurred religions of apartheid et al - the crucifiers must be brought to justice to bring heavenly paradise back to garden earth.

That’s exactly what I would expect a religious nutjob to say.

 

[Meriweather]

So I read the Bible myself — critically, without the filtered context — and I found it wanting. Often deeply disturbing. That’s what happens when you stop reading cherry-picked verses and look at the full picture.

Rabbis offer great advice when they recommend that the bible be studied, not read.