[...] which the current socialists and leftists claim as the feats of their ideology, were also accomplished by the effort of Christianity. It must be really desperate to know that by deconstructing the Christian faith, you end up deconstructing yourself... — Gus Lamarch

historical revisionism that favors your tantrum against Christianity — Gus Lamarch

:D You misunderstand. There's no desperation revisionism tantrum. There are a few historical facts that you (seem to intentionally) omit and now downplay (with a bit of raving). I'm not passing judgment in particular, but pointing out a few things your preaching missed; I can post more if you like.
By the way, if Christianity is the divine moral go-to, then why didn't the Bible say "slavery bad, don't"? See The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 4, for example.
What's with the "socialists and leftists" anyway?

If you want to make your case you will have to do better than ad hominems and self-assertions.

I did ask you a few questions that you never answered (for which you bear the burden of proof):

'You mean a real, concrete absolute, verifiable just like the moon? Or do you mean that humans believed that God was absolute? [Nihilism] Preconditioned by what?'

Also, , there seems to be overlap between Ronald Hanko, Thomas Aquinas (← mentioned earlier), Ephesians 5:21-22 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12, for example.
I suppose a relevant question then is: would you go by the Bible as the truth of the matter (by definition), maybe try to make excuses for the Bible, or do the right thing in any case (even if not going by the Bible as the definition)?

I want to believe (in the sense of "belief"). I don't contradict truth — Gregory

And I am saying that this "tolerant" belief where everyone can believe what they want, does not endure, and only weakens. At some point - in the near or distant future - a new religion will be strong enough to turn itself hegemonic, and with it, new virtues and values ​​will be created - the most probable candidate is Islam, but who knows if the west will not create a peudo-christian marxist belief and eventually synthetize that as a religion. -.

Luther — Gregory

Luther had created the fragmentation that would eventually become the main symptom of the eventual secularization of Christianity - individual interpretation of the gospels -. And it is obvious that Christianity - as it was hegemonic until the end of the 15th century - would reach the Enlightenment anyway, with Protestant reform or without. Luther with his religious dogmas of "trying to return to a more "pure" and "faithful" church" was nothing more than individual resentment of someone who did not have what others achieved in the institution of the church. Contrary to what some say, where "the Catholic church was anti-Semitic during the Middle Ages", Luther was one of the first Christians - not to be confused with the term "Catholic", as Luther was already calling himself a Protestant - to advocate a real and conscious seek to problematize and criticize european jews. Quoting Luther:

"What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews":

"First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools … This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians ... Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb … Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside ... Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them … Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow … But if we are afraid that they might harm us or our wives, children, servants, cattle, etc., … then let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc., … then eject them forever from the country ..."

Luther was neither a Christian nor a scholar, but a simple resentful who had been given the power to communicate to the world - until then, Europe - through the mass printing of his writings. Thanks to him, we live in a period where a "pantheon of interpretations of God" exists. For these and other reasons, it is logical that the Pope - being a strong and charismatic leader - Leo X, would act fast against this heretic. Not only was the stability of the church at stake, but the entire structure that kept its values ​​and morals intact.

What about Leo X's decree against Luther? Are we to burn heretics to death like it suggests? — Gregory

Are you talking about the papal bull "Exsurge Domine" - Arise, O Lord -? If so, let's analyse it:

Leo X & Exsurge Domine.

"With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication...."

"...we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them. ... Indeed immediately after the publication of this letter these works, wherever they may be, shall be sought out carefully by the ordinaries and others [ecclesiastics and regulars], and under each and every one of the above penalties shall be burned publicly and solemnly in the presence of the clerics and people."

At no point do I see an ambiguity in favor of "burning the heretics" as you said. What Pope Leo X wanted to convey with this papal bull was the message that the interception of Luther's biblical scriptures - and his followers - was tainted by his personal views on the scriptures, and that this would harm the european institution as a whole - I agree that the burning of the books only gave more arguments in favor of Luther, and that the Pope Leo X could have been more pragmatic in this regard, however, he tried to act as quickly as possible -. Luther was not doing the church and its followers a favor, but unconsciously, doing it for his own self-realization to the detriment of all.

'You mean a real, concrete absolute, verifiable just like the moon? Or do you mean that humans believed that God was absolute? — JerseyFlight

God - in my view - had been the totality of the absolute for society because it was a human interpretation what they could be in transcendence - allpowerful, omnipresent, and omniscient, in total, "being" - . Not something physical, real, intrinsically existing in the factory of the Universe. We are talking about concepts, which, in short, are already abstract.

[Nihilism] Preconditioned by what?' — JerseyFlight

I do not believe that Christianity, its symbolism, theology, values ​​and morals were the cause of nihilism. The christian religion - codified, already absolutely finalized - in the catholic view - - has been and continues to be used as a political and social tool, and nihilism is the consequence of our evil intentions - in most cases - when using it. The only way for a concept to be projected into the world is through the individual, and the individual uses it as he sees fit. The cause is not in the concept, but in the vehicle of its projection into the world.

By the way, if Christianity is the divine moral go-to, then why didn't the Bible say "slavery bad, don't"? — jorndoe

I'll ask the same question I asked Gregory before:

What is the best alternative to Christianity then? If you tell me something that better deals with the concept of individual freedom, values ​​and morals of what is good and bad; I convert- in the case of being a religion - or begin to follow - in the case, of being an ideology -.

What's with the "socialists and leftists" anyway? — jorndoe

Not for you, but for Jersey Flight.

do the right thing in any case (even if not going by the Bible as the definition)? — jorndoe

This is my point of view about Christianity.

It has a lot of things that are bad, but it has much more things that are good, and in a time of complete subjectiveness and a nihilistic take on religion, it has the best principles to follow. -"But the Bible says nothing about slavery". So what? We'll assume now that every christian is a slavery apologist? Of course not.

The Bible does say things about slavery, @Gus Lamarch, just not the right thing.
What about mentioned discrimination, females, gay folk too? Just how much can be justified by a Bible reading should someone be intent on that?
The Bible does not define morals (many seem to pick-and-choose anyway).
You don't "follow" (to use your word), you develop autonomous moral agency (if you justifiably want to be/remain an autonomous actor at least).
But, hey, I certainly prefer this consequence over this/this.

the Stoic philosopher Seneca writes unapologetically: "Unnatural progeny we destroy; we drown even children who at birth are weakly and abnormal... And whilst there were deviations from these views..., it is probably correct to say that such practices...were less proscribed in ancient times. Most historians of western morals agree that the rise of ...Christianity contributed greatly to the general feeling that human life is valuable and worthy of respect." — Gus Lamarch

You're not really claiming this is quote from Seneca, are you? I know that Christianity borrowed assiduously from the Stoics and other pagan philosophers in trying to create a intellectual basis for itself, but to claim he wrote this about Christianity is excessive even for those ever-acquisitive early Christians.

P.S. I do like the "probably correct" qualifier.

From a corporative perspective, I must say that Christianity is the most enduring and successful enterprise of all times. Also, just to frame the picture, people buy all kind of things, and MacDonalds is not the healthiest food.

The Bible does say things about slavery, Gus Lamarch, just not the right thing.
What about mentioned discrimination, females, gay folk too? Just how much can be justified by a Bible reading should someone be intent on that?
The Bible does not define morals (many seem to pick-and-choose anyway).
You don't "follow" (to use your word), you develop autonomous moral agency (if you justifiably want to be/remain an autonomous actor at least).
But, hey, I certainly prefer this consequence over this/this. — jorndoe

I already made my statement. I don't know how should we continue this discussion.

You're not really claiming this is quote from Seneca, are you? I know that Christianity borrowed assiduously from the Stoics and other pagan philosophers in trying to create a intellectual basis for itself, but to claim he wrote this about Christianity is excessive even for those ever-acquisitive early Christians. — Ciceronianus the White

You're not really claiming this is quote from Seneca, are you? — Ciceronianus the White

Stauch, Marc; Wheat, Kay (2015). "12.1.2.1:The Sanctity of human life by H.Kuhse". Text, Cases & Materials on Medical Law.

I'm not saying nothing.

On exurge dominae: read the 33rd proposition that is condemned. If you are for a religion that officially sanctions one of the worst forms of torture -capital punishment in the name of knowing "truth", well I have no more to say to you then. Christianity is as brutal as Islam. The Jews "of the Lord" in the OT killed children

Christianity is as brutal as Islam. — Gregory

And yet, here you are, living on the world it helped build...

And yet, here you are, living on the world it helped build... — Gus Lamarch

This is a fallacious and simplified generalization. The world we live in was in large part built by science. If you remove this you have serious problems, you end up in the dark ages. Further, it was the Humanistic negations that were applied to Christianity that account for quality in the sense you are speaking. I am not saying that religion didn't play a role in man's social evolution, I am saying that it did not play the role you are trying to assign it. Trying to claim that religion, specifically Christianity, is the ideology that accounts for the quality of the modern world, is itself an ideology.

You don't believe in God but you think the most important man in the world is Pope Francis?

Just clarifying

I'll try to summarize my point in the best possible way:

- Christianity is the basis of all western civilization today, and every advance, progress, freedom achieved, is thanks to the weakening of the dogmas of this same religion - secularism -. However, this same secularism decays - thanks to nihilism - and eventually causes this same society to collapse. To avoid this collapse, a rational belief in Christianity would be necessary, however - as this is practically impossible to achieve -, I opt for conscious-unconscious belief on the christian faith - if it worked for a 1000 years for europe, it should - in theory - work for us -. If you don't believe in Christianity, at least pretend to do so to legitimize your values, morals, and purposes. — Gus Lamarch

I had to quote myself - for the second time - because I really think you didn't read it.

I'm not going to pretend to be Jesus's spouse to please you

I'm not going to pretend to be Jesus's spouse to please you — Gregory

End of the discussion.

You've accused non-Christian westerners of sinning by not becoming Christian awhile being an atheist yourself. Each person has to make up their own mind on how to save the West. Bye!

God - in my view - had been the totality of the absolute for society because it was a human interpretation what they could be in transcendence - allpowerful, omnipresent, and omniscient, in total, "being" - . Not something physical, real, intrinsically existing in the factory of the Universe. We are talking about concepts, which, in short, are already abstract. — Gus Lamarch

What is the best alternative to Christianity then? If you tell me something that better deals with the concept of individual freedom, values ​​and morals of what is good and bad; I convert- in the case of being a religion - or begin to followMa - in the case, of being an ideology -. — Gus Lamarch

:100:
In my opinion yours is the last or close to the last word that's reasonable, all else unreasonable.

As to a better or a best alternative, maybe, maybe, that's the home-made, home brewed set of beliefs, maybe a synthesis/distillation of the familiar. To aver Christianity best available, over and above familiarity, calls for a knowledge of other belief systems. Perhaps the best has come and gone. I suspect there are treasures to be had in native North American Indian beliefs - but where would a person easily find out?

"Christianity formed a new standard, higher than any which then existed in the world...The justice teachings of Jesus are closely related to a commitment to life's sanctity..."

Duffy, Eamon (1997). Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes. — Gus Lamarch

You might consider reading There is no Crime for those who have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire by Michael Gaddis regarding what was justified in the name of that higher standard, from the beginning of Christian dominance of the West. If there is such a higher standard, it's likely there has never been one so blithely ignored in all of our sad history, and by avowed Christians too.

There Is No Crime for Those Who Have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire (Transformation of the Classical Heritage)
Michael Gaddis

"There is no crime for those who have Christ," claimed a fifth-century zealot, neatly expressing the belief of religious extremists that righteous zeal for God trumps worldly law. This book provides an in-depth and penetrating look at religious violence and the attitudes that drove it in the Christian Roman Empire of the fourth and fifth centuries, a unique period shaped by the marriage of Christian ideology and Roman imperial power. Drawing together materials spanning a wide chronological and geographical range, Gaddis asks what religious conflict meant to those involved, both perpetrators and victims, and how violence was experienced, represented, justified, or contested. His innovative analysis reveals how various groups employed the language of religious violence to construct their own identities, to undermine the legitimacy of their rivals, and to advance themselves in the competitive and high-stakes process of Christianizing the Roman Empire."

Now this is just it, isn't it? When religion, in this case, Christianity, aligns itself with imperial power. This is when the real tyranny begins. In the United States Christianity is always trying to align itself with the power of the Federal Government and the State. It has been doing this for years.

The founders knew that religion would thwart freedom if ever it should become political, hence, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

The theocrats are at the gates and beating on the doors.

"No crime for those who embrace our cult ideology." Zeal for God trumps worldly law, and yet all law is worldly! Christianity is just an incompetent form of it.

The claim that God's law trumps worldly law is an attempt to create a false dichotomy, it is an attempt to construct a category that is immune to criticism, pure authoritarianism. I don't see our zealous egoist seeking to submit himself to fundamentalist sects, which is to say, he does not live in a Christian world and neither does he seek one out. He will not even drink the poison he is so zealously recommending.

So it's being proposed the Christians unite under the sole ideas that Jesus was God and rose from the dead? Are they to ignore the questions of infant baptism, the Canon of Scripture, and every other doctrine in order to make "Mere Christianity" ( a derogatory term of C.S. Lewis is his book titled thusly). And what of Mormons and JWs who also claim to be Christian? Ecumenism has been a failure since the time it started in the 60's, and Pope Francis is not going to lead a group of minimalist Christians against Islam. He would tell them to become Catholic.

Christianity unity is simply not going to happen since Islam is invading the West quietly, subtlety, and under the protection of liberalism. Pope Francis is a man of contradiction . He rejects Exsurge Dominae because he is liberal, and he wants to protect Islam because he is liberal. Being a conflicted person, he is not going to start trying to unite Christians under one banner against Islam. Ain't gonna happen

In my opinion yours is the last or close to the last word that's reasonable, all else unreasonable. — tim wood

Thank you for the kind words.

As to a better or a best alternative, maybe, maybe, that's the home-made, home brewed set of beliefs, maybe a synthesis/distillation of the familiar. To aver Christianity best available, over and above familiarity, calls for a knowledge of other belief systems. Perhaps the best has come and gone. I suspect there are treasures to be had in native North American Indian beliefs - but where would a person easily find out? — tim wood

It is really complicated to try to create a new set of values ​​and morals from the remains of another set. My biggest question about this is how to make it legitimate while everyone who follows it - in a time like ours - in most cases will be aware that it is all the result of a metaphysical construction.

If there is such a higher standard, it's likely there has never been one so blithely ignored in all of our sad history, and by avowed Christians too. — Ciceronianus the White

Fact. Values ​​have always been there, however, only as public dogma, while individually - private - everyone did the opposite - generalizing -. In moments of secular weakness, I notice that people who really want to rescue these virtues and morals start popping up.

When religion, in this case, Christianity — JerseyFlight

Here you take and use Christianity as if it were something real, something physical, and we all know that it is just an abstract concept and that people are the real things that then distorts and uses these same concepts. I don't know why I keep trying to argue with you since everyone here has noticed that you are pure pseudophilosophy.

Christianity unity is simply not going to happen since Islam is invading the West quietly, subtlety, and under the protection of liberalism. — Gregory

As Chritianity did in the Roman civilization in the past, during its secular and globalizing phase. its a cycle and we are again doing it. We could try to stop it or even get out of the wheel completely, but then we have all kinds of people who prefer to argue while the barbarians are at the gates of Rome, or should I say, Washington - using the USA as an example -.

Sedevacantists are popping up too. Christianity unity is a illusion

Pope Francis — Gregory

Weak Pope as only the secular West could accomplish.

how to make it legitimate while everyone who follows it - in a time like ours - in most cases will be aware that it is all the result of a metaphysical construction. — Gus Lamarch

I submit nor you nor anyone else, does. It stands on its own, maybe some luck required. Strip Christianity of its supernatural aspects, miracles, and reifying tendencies, and (imo) there's solid (metaphysical) stuff left. Our poster-child for that "stuff" can be, "Don't murder." Not original with Christianity, but neither it nor Christianity diminished thereby. (Nor by the fact that a lot of so-called Christians have not paid attention to it.)