Zone1 What makes Christianity different from other religions?

[forkup]

Never mind then. We could have gone into parts where you still have questions, but that would not be productive when all that would be seen is "confirmation bias."

I didn’t dismiss the idea of studying the Bible or the Torah — I pointed out that when we selectively use certain passages to support a narrative while ignoring others that clearly contradict it, that’s confirmation bias by definition.


And yes, your answers to my questions would likely face the same critique — not because either of us is arguing in bad faith, but because the pattern of selective interpretation tends to repeat. More fundamentally, though, it's because trying to answer complex moral or philosophical questions using a 2,700-year-old text like the Torah doesn’t work on logical grounds alone. It requires faith as a starting point — and that’s something I can’t accept without sufficient reason.

 

[ding]

It is. There is quite a bit of additional Hebrew writing that ties in explanations with specific scriptures, but it is lengthy and can be tedious. I probably did a poor job summarizing, but I also think as a firm conclusion has already been made, why bother with any more study.

Google is their friend. It’s not that hard. The lack of objectivity on their part is astounding.

 

[forkup]

People forget that it was TRUMP who pushed for approval of the vaccine which was then rolled out at lightning speed and that Pfizer had it ready before the election but didn't want to announce it because they hated Trump and still do.

I remember things like this. Now I don't know what you think but saying to your people to do less testing for Covid so you don't look bad, isn't exactly responsible leadership.

Then they say he was against masks when he was against forced mask wearing as was I. Studies since then have shown that masks do not work,

Could you please share those studies? More importantly, even if some studies suggest masks are less effective than hoped, that doesn’t automatically make mask-wearing bad policy. When dealing with a new infectious disease and incomplete information, it’s logical—and responsible—to take precautions based on the worst-case scenario to protect public health.

There is no evidence that deaths were reduced because of rampant mask wearing, and states that did not mandated them fared no worse when compared with population density than those that did not. Trump spent billions to give regular hospitals extra money to treat the uninsured, and we paid lavishly for the vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. So, just how did Trump handle Covid poorly?

I appreciate you laying out those points. It’s true the Trump administration poured significant resources into hospitals and fast-tracked vaccines — that part can’t be overlooked. Operation Warp Speed was a major achievement.


That said, the mask question is more complicated. Studies have shown mixed results, and the effectiveness of mask mandates depends a lot on context — timing, compliance, and other factors matter. Just comparing states on mask mandates without considering population density, social habits, testing, or outbreak timing oversimplifies things.


It’s also fair to say that early on, inconsistent messaging from leadership—including about masks—undermined public trust and made things harder. Many experts think the federal response lacked coordination, especially at the start.


So yes, there were real successes like vaccine development, but the overall pandemic response had its flaws. It’s a complex issue, and no simple narrative covers it all.

Regarding ICE, this is yet ANOTHER gaslighting indoctrination tactic. Yes, there may have been a handful of innocent people arrested. They are targeting criminals, and 99.9% of those arrested have been people with a criminal record.

I’m sorry, but when you conduct mass arrests in places like Home Depot, it’s hard to believe 99.9% of those detained are criminals. The optics and reality don’t quite line up, and that kind of sweeping action often sweeps up many who don’t have criminal records.


I don’t think this is getting us anywhere. Trying to convince me that indoctrination is somehow exclusive—or even more prevalent—on the Democratic side, especially by focusing on Covid or immigration, just derails the original point and won’t convince me.

 

[forkup]

For the record, I witnessed this in my own family in how my mom was a devout Catholic who was taught a women's place was in the home and to have many children and obey her man. Conveniently, my father was a devout Catholic and loved those rules and lorded over her like a military general berating her for anything and everything, all in accordance with biblical teachings that a woman (or slave) was much less than a male and their property.

She accepted these rules because people in authority taught her that this was what "God" wanted.

I'm sorry to hear that. I don't know what's worse, being treated that way. Or believing it's ok when you are.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

I remember things like this. Now I don't know what you think but saying to your people to do less testing for Covid so you don't look bad, isn't exactly responsible leadership.

Could you please share those studies? More importantly, even if some studies suggest masks are less effective than hoped, that doesn’t automatically make mask-wearing bad policy. When dealing with a new infectious disease and incomplete information, it’s logical—and responsible—to take precautions based on the worst-case scenario to protect public health.

I appreciate you laying out those points. It’s true the Trump administration poured significant resources into hospitals and fast-tracked vaccines — that part can’t be overlooked. Operation Warp Speed was a major achievement.


That said, the mask question is more complicated. Studies have shown mixed results, and the effectiveness of mask mandates depends a lot on context — timing, compliance, and other factors matter. Just comparing states on mask mandates without considering population density, social habits, testing, or outbreak timing oversimplifies things.


It’s also fair to say that early on, inconsistent messaging from leadership—including about masks—undermined public trust and made things harder. Many experts think the federal response lacked coordination, especially at the start.


So yes, there were real successes like vaccine development, but the overall pandemic response had its flaws. It’s a complex issue, and no simple narrative covers it all.

I’m sorry, but when you conduct mass arrests in places like Home Depot, it’s hard to believe 99.9% of those detained are criminals. The optics and reality don’t quite line up, and that kind of sweeping action often sweeps up many who don’t have criminal records.


I don’t think this is getting us anywhere. Trying to convince me that indoctrination is somehow exclusive—or even more prevalent—on the Democratic side, especially by focusing on Covid or immigration, just derails the original point and won’t convince me.

I had many studies that showed the mask wearing states fared no better than the states that did not mandate them. I also had studies and report from astrobiologists that showed that covid did go right through cloth masks. The only masks that were somewhat effective were a properly fitted N95 respirators, and they were not mandated. Fauci said at the beginning that cloth masks did NOT work, and a month later did an about face. I did not keep the links.

No one ever ordered anyone to slow down testing, including Trump. But experience with testing has showed that it had many false positives, and you could find COVID on an orange peel.

Home Depot is an outlier, you prove once again how indoctrination works when people use extreme examples such as yours as the norm.

No. This is not getting us anywhere because I am stating my personal observations that the indoctrination tactic of fear is far more heavily used by the leftwing media anchors and people like Schumer, Jeffries and other leaders, especially as YOU do and they do by making people think we are like Nazis rounding up Jews.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

I'm sorry to hear that. I don't know what's worse, being treated that way. Or believing it's ok when you are.

I suppose that is the main reason that my area of interest, study and writing is on indoctrination and when I was immersed in being indoctrinated into what I call the cult of Catholicism I had no clue I was. It is just accepted as the truth because you are being told it is by your parents, your older siblings, your teachers, by those in authority and the area in which you live. When just about everyone you know and associate with believes it, you believe along with them. I have older brothers and sisters who still believe. One confided in me that he never read the bible and would disparage non-believers but all he knew is what he was told by his elders and my parents and accepted that.

Now, you say that the Democrats do not se indoctrination tactics and especially that of fear any more than Republicans do. I have no way of disproving that, and it is an arguable point. But it is one that doesn't matter as far as my premise is concerned. Whether one tribe does it more than the other, indoctrination is still rampant and effective. Repeat a lie over and over, put people in fear, implant the belief, make people angry and dislike the other tribe, and then you get them to go to battle for you so that you stay in power and the money that goes along with it.

This recipe hasn't changed for thousands of years. Christianity was patterned after this time-worn and effective method. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Get them to fear not believing your story.

 

[forkup]

I had many studies that showed the mask wearing states fared no better than the states that did not mandate them. I also had studies and report from astrobiologists that showed that covid did go right through cloth masks. The only masks that were somewhat effective were a properly fitted N95 respirators, and they were not mandated. Fauci said at the beginning that cloth masks did NOT work, and a month later did an about face. I did not keep the links.

First you didn't answer my point that if you have incomplete information about an infectious disease you err on the side of caution. And we aren't talking about Fauci. We are talking about Trump.
Second you claimed masks were ineffective. Now you say some were.

No one ever ordered anyone to slow down testing, including Trump. But experience with testing has showed that it had many false positives, and you could find COVID on an orange peel.

Oh is that so? So, you're asking me to ignore what Trump said, in public, in front of thousands of people, and instead believe your claim. Completely unsupported? Would you accept that line of reasoning when discussing the bible?

Home Depot is an outlier, you prove once again how indoctrination works when people use extreme examples such as yours as the norm.

The very fact that it happened at all shows that they aren't necessarily targeting criminals. And no, it's not an outlier. In fact, Does this sound like targeting criminals here?

 

[forkup]

I suppose that is the main reason that my area of interest, study and writing is on indoctrination and when I was immersed in being indoctrinated into what I call the cult of Catholicism I had no clue I was. It is just accepted as the truth because you are being told it is by your parents, your older siblings, your teachers, by those in authority and the area in which you live. When just about everyone you know and associate with believes it, you believe along with them. I have older brothers and sisters who still believe. One confided in me that he never read the bible and would disparage non-believers but all he knew is what he was told by his elders and my parents and accepted that.

Now, you say that the Democrats do not se indoctrination tactics and especially that of fear any more than Republicans do. I have no way of disproving that, and it is an arguable point. But it is one that doesn't matter as far as my premise is concerned. Whether one tribe does it more than the other, indoctrination is still rampant and effective. Repeat a lie over and over, put people in fear, implant the belief, make people angry and dislike the other tribe, and then you get them to go to battle for you so that you stay in power and the money that goes along with it.

This recipe hasn't changed for thousands of years. Christianity was patterned after this time-worn and effective method. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Get them to fear not believing your story.

No, it doesn’t change your core premise — and I don’t disagree with it. Indoctrination is real, and powerful, and it’s been used for centuries. Where we might differ is in how evenly we think it's applied.


I’m just trying to be honest — with you, and with myself — as free of bias as I can manage. I fail at that, of course, though probably less than most. And only because I don’t pretend to be immune to it. That’s actually why I challenged your political framing: not to dismiss your ideas, but because I think bias gets more dangerous when it hides behind certainty.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

First you didn't answer my point that if you have incomplete information about an infectious disease you err on the side of caution. And we aren't talking about Fauci. We are talking about Trump.
Second you claimed masks were ineffective. Now you say some were.

I find this snarky remark disingenuous in light of the fact that N95s were not recommended and I admitted that they were effective. Since the masks that were recommended were worn and studies showed that the states that mandated them fared no better, my premise is correct. They were mandated without any scientific evidence and bringing Fauci into the discussion is completely relevant since he was the head of the NIH and LIED when he came back and changed his mind and said they WERE effective after his initial comments saying that "The might stop a few droplets........."If they wanted to err on the side of caution, they need to use science and not a hope.

Oh is that so? So, you're asking me to ignore what Trump said, in public, in front of thousands of people, and instead believe your claim. Completely unsupported? Would you accept that line of reasoning when discussing the bible?

His saying to stop testing did not harm anyone.

The very fact that it happened at all shows that they aren't necessarily targeting criminals. And no, it's not an outlier. In fact, Does this sound like targeting criminals here?

Stop being like all the rest and using outliers in your debate. That a few people who were not criminals were affected doesn't mean we stop going after the criminal illegals. In ant event, being here illegally is still a crime.


PS. I thought you were a rational liberal but you are just like all the rest, sadly. Your arguments are disingenuous and the kind found by anchors on CNN and MSNBS

 

[forkup]

I find this snarky remark disingenuous in light of the fact that N95s were not recommended and I admitted that they were effective. Since the masks that were recommended were worn and studies showed that the states that mandated them fared no better, my premise is correct. They were mandated without any scientific evidence and bringing Fauci into the discussion is completely relevant since he was the head of the NIH and LIED when he came back and changed his mind and said they WERE effective after his initial comments saying that "The might stop a few droplets........."If they wanted to err on the side of caution, they need to use science and not a hope.

His saying to stop testing did not harm anyone.

Stop being like all the rest and using outliers in your debate. That a few people who were not criminals were affected doesn't mean we stop going after the criminal illegals. In ant event, being here illegally is still a crime.


PS. I thought you were a rational liberal but you are just like all the rest, sadly. Your arguments are disingenuous and the kind found by anchors on CNN and MSNBS

I literally gave you an interview — on Fox News — where the director of ICE justifies detaining people based on how they look. I gave you video of Trump explicitly saying he told his team to slow testing down. These aren't outliers — they're direct evidence.


You dismissed both, deflected, and got irritated with me for bringing them up. But that’s exactly the kind of selective reasoning and loyalty-driven bias you rightly criticize when it comes to religion.


So if what I said came off as snarky, I’ll accept that. But to me, I’m being consistent — calling out indoctrination wherever I see it, regardless of which “tribe” is doing it.

 

[Meriweather]

I didn’t dismiss the idea of studying the Bible or the Torah — I pointed out that when we selectively use certain passages to support a narrative while ignoring others that clearly contradict it, that’s confirmation bias by definition.

"Confirmation bias" is as inane as "Agree to disagree." Bias is either being in favor of something or against something. If someone wishes to accuse another of "confirmation bias" then that person should be forthright and admit they are firmly entrenched in rejection bias. In the same way, either two people agree or they disagree.

Too often, people who feel they have a Biblical "gotcha" also hold the belief they have been "enlightened" while everyone else just gave it a pass or ignored it. In fact, I studied beyond the Bible, then went back and reread each passage from the perspective of what I had learned from other sources. Somewhere along the line I heard (or read) that instead of reading scripture from our own point of view, we should try reading it from God's point of view.

 

[Meriweather]

I had many studies that showed the mask wearing states fared no better than the states that did not mandate them. I also had studies and report from astrobiologists that showed that covid did go right through cloth masks.

Something we agreed on! Imagine that! Anyone with an allergy to cats can testify to that. If cat dander can't be blocked by wearing a mask, neither can a mask block a virus.

 

[forkup]

"Confirmation bias" is as inane as "Agree to disagree." Bias is either being in favor of something or against something. If someone wishes to accuse another of "confirmation bias" then that person should be forthright and admit they are firmly entrenched in rejection bias. In the same way, either two people agree or they disagree.

I think there’s a third option beyond just agreeing or disagreeing: actively trying to avoid bias. In my approach, I aim to understand the Bible by reading it in full, taking the text at face value, and viewing interpretations that ignore parts of the text as provisional or possibly biased. To me, either the text is a coherent divine message that can be understood through careful reading, or it’s a human work that requires selective interpretation to fit a narrative. I recognize this is a high standard, but if God—an omnipotent being—truly had a hand in it and wants people to worship Him, the least He could do is make His message clear enough to be understood simply by reading it. If it requires human intermediaries to explain it—often contradicting the text or each other—I have no good reason to accept it. Especially because, throughout history and even today, those intermediaries have disagreed so frequently that their conflicts have sparked countless wars and schisms across religions.

Too often, people who feel they have a Biblical "gotcha" also hold the belief they have been "enlightened" while everyone else just gave it a pass or ignored it. In fact, I studied beyond the Bible, then went back and reread each passage from the perspective of what I had learned from other sources. Somewhere along the line I heard (or read) that instead of reading scripture from our own point of view, we should try reading it from God's point of view.

I don’t see myself as “enlightened.” I just have an uncompromising epistemic framework—one that demands empirical proof before I accept something as true. I’m not asking you or anyone else to share that standard, nor do I think it’s some kind of superior insight. Honestly, it can be punishing because it leaves little room for ego to protect me. That’s a choice I made long ago.


So when someone says we should read scripture from God’s point of view, it doesn’t quite make sense to me—because if you don’t even know who or what God is, or if God exists at all, attributing a specific perspective to Him feels nonsensical.

 

[BreezeWood]

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

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

what is said -

christian ... what's even worse is you can not read anything but the lies and fallacies, desert religions you use for your own personal gain. as why everyone knows exactly where that certain christian is in the photo.

 

[BreezeWood]

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

which one, there are three - after 2k years what do you suppose can not be read about what they have studied or why needing study precludes heavenly quality but rather a course for deceptional intrigue.

 

[ding]

what is said -

View attachment 1136631

christian ... what's even worse is you can not read anything but the lies and fallacies, desert religions you use for your own personal gain. as why everyone knows exactly where that certain christian is in the photo.

Do you know why they stopped burning and hanging witches? It’s because they realized there were no witches, dummy.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Something we agreed on! Imagine that! Anyone with an allergy to cats can testify to that. If cat dander can't be blocked by wearing a mask, neither can a mask block a virus.

I am a staunch conservative who is a nonbeliever.

But I do get incensed at these snarky liberals who post crap they have no clue about and pretend they know more than me on the topic. On another site, I had literally thousands of Covid related posts. It was somewhat of my hobby to research it. Their side was wrong on every single thing, including Ivermectin. At the height of the COVID hysteria (most case were the simple flu anyway) I wore a mask in Home Depot and still had it on as I exited. I smelled cigarette smoke. I looked around and a good 40 feet away from me was a guy smoking against the wall. I thought, "Hmm, cigarette smoke goes right through my cloth mask". Then I checked to see the size of a smoke particle versus a COVID particle, and they are about the same size. So, now here I can smell smoke but COVID doesn't have an odor so how many COVID particles did I inhale in the Home Depot store with 50people or more in there and no outside air to filter it?

That led me to aero biologists who are the real experts and studied this. They are the ones who did the REAL science, unlike the hack Fauci and the CDC head. One thing Fauci did know at the beginning of all this was that flu particles go through masks because of his 50 years experience. That's why he said early on that "Masks MAY stop a few particles but don't provide the level of protection people think they do".

Someone must have talked to him because a month later he did a complete 180 and recommended cloth masks. The liberal press didn't care that he changed his mind as some alleged great medical doctor "scientist". They all jumped on it because they are control freaks. His excuse for the change? He wanted to stop a run on medical masks!!! So, he lied to save the doctors which is his tribe!!! Did the press care that he lied? Nope. This is why and how we are all indoctrinated. Through collective silence. The man headed the NIH and was the highest government paid employee, and he LIED abut masks and admittedly so?

What he could have done if he was afraid of a run on masks is to confide in Trump that he needed to invoke emergency powers and get every medical mask maker to work 24/7 to make sure there are millions of them and in the meantime to tell the public that medical masks are better but not always effective and a N(% mask is really the best.

Fauci is really a mass murderer. His pardon may go away now, and he might be tried for the origination of the virus.. Either he lied about masks in the beginning or he lied when he said they did work.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Do you know why they stopped burning and hanging witches? It’s because they realized there were no witches, dummy.

If they first realized there was no God, they would not have burned little girls at the stake in the first place, tortured people for a non belief, hung and burned non-believers, invented a hell to scare people.....warp young kids minds.

 

[ding]

If they first realized there was no God, they would not have burned little girls at the stake in the first place, tortured people for a non belief, hung and burned non-believers, invented a hell to scare people.....warp young kids minds.

So glad you could get that off of your militant atheist chest. I guess the 100 to 200 million people murder by the militant atheist regimes of the 20th century wasn’t that bad by comparison.

 

[BreezeWood]

Do you know why they stopped burning and hanging witches? It’s because they realized there were no witches, dummy.

who's they ... who realized "it is wrong" ...

that's not a witch, its hester prynne - of course - the fame of scarlet letter in abstentia for that derision of christianity the evils of moses, judaism their false commandments the three desert religions - where were the magi who saved mary ...