Premises

1) secularism is strong

2) Islam is not composed just of barbarians

3) i'd rather be killed by Muslims than say I'm either Christian or Islamic. I'll follow my conscience thank you

i'd rather be killed — Gregory

Secularism, ladies and gentlemen! Nihilism in its truest form...

Secularism, ladies and gentlemen! Nihilism in its truest form... — Gus Lamarch

No, honesty

Why don't you become a Muslim to save you're own skin, hmm.

"Don't murder." — tim wood

Let's get this straight. You guys are saying Pope Francis is strong to oppose the old teaching about burning heretics but weak in not opposing Islam. HOWEVER, what would the new Christianity, founded on the basic ideas that Jesus is Lord, say about abortion?

In moments of secular weakness, I notice that people who really want to rescue these virtues and morals start popping up. — Gus Lamarch

But my dear man, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is far superior (and more specific) to anything that was ever produced by Christianity. You will not even live in your own Christian world. It's too extreme, suffocating, dogmatic, primitive, lacking any kind of philosophical intelligence. So what are you here engaged in, based on your own philosophy, juvenile provocations to appease the cravings of your ego. What you say is not serious, and neither is your manner of discourse, it is nothing more than an exercise in self-assertion to bolster delusional feelings of power. How could it not be, this is what you signed up for, mighty man, when you decided to reduce the world to the size of your ego.

Muslim — Gregory

If I have to, I would do it. We are not yet at the point of time where forceful conversion is being made by the state. - Saint Augustine only converted to Christianity after the "Edict of Thessalonike" of 380 AD by the roman emperor Theodosius I. The edict stated:

"It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our Clemency and Moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven we shall decide to inflict."

- Augustine converted in 386 AD and eventually became one of the most recognizable and important saints of Christianity -

Universal Declaration of Human Rights is far superior (and more specific) to anything that was ever produced by Christianity. — JerseyFlight

True enough, but, it was only created because the people who created it lived in a christian west, where freedom and individuality is valued.

You will not even live in your own Christian world. It's too extreme, suffocating, dogmatic, primitive, lacking any kind of philosophical intelligence. — JerseyFlight

- 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

Third time I quote myself here because people only read what agrees with them.

So what are you here engaged in, based on your own philosophy, juvenile provocations to appease the cravings of your ego. What you say is not serious, and neither is your manner of discourse, it is nothing more than an exercise in self-assertion to bolster delusional feelings of power. How could it not be, this is what you signed up for, mighty man, when you decided to reduce the world to the size of your ego. — JerseyFlight

Finally, the "revolutionary humanist" monster showed itself!

say about abortion? — Gregory

Whatever did God say about abortion?

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. — Gus Lamarch

A speculation.

Christianity's effort to combine what I think is the foundation of Western civilization (ancient pagan philosophy) with peculiarly Christian doctrine and scripture ultimately failed because that doctrine and scripture became increasingly incredible (by which I mean less and less believable). When that happened, the end of Christian dominion in Western thought resulted in despair and disregard of reason and morality.

There came a point where the miracles, the resurrection, the immaculate conception, the trinity, the stories of the saints, the claim that Christianity was the only true path to salvation, couldn't be accepted as convincingly true. Then efforts were made to explain the more unlikely aspects of doctrine and doubtful claims of scripture by characterizing them as not literally true but otherwise profound. Christian apologists and theologians began to sound more like deists than Christians, something which began much earlier, in fact, when Augustine and Aquinas and others took on the task of interpreting ancient philosophy in such a manner as to justify, however awkwardly, Christian doctrine, or at least to be compatible with it by a version of special pleading.

But unfortunately (at least I think so) Christianity's emphasis and insistence on its peculiar beliefs overwhelmed its uncomfortable assimilation of pre-Christian philosophy, especially as far as its "flock" was concerned if not its shepards. So as Christian doctrine became unbelievable, and God was despaired of, nihilism and other alternatives were accepted by some. God being dead, all was permissible, etc.

So perhaps nihilism is the result of the failure of Christianity, or that failure contributed to it.

Third time I quote myself here because people only read what agrees with them. — Gus Lamarch

I dont think people are picking up on what you are expecting them to. You might want to try expanding on what you mean, break it down, instead of just repeating it. Just a non-hostile suggestion.

Finally, the "revolutionary humanist" monster showed itself! — Gus Lamarch

(imagine this in a high, English style dialect, framed in a tone of up and down expression): Monstrous, you say, because I drew out the implications of your own egoism? I do say, I mean, after all, you are the one who accused yourself of it. I mean, where ever did you get the notion that it would be a good idea to lead with it as a description of yourself?

I dont think people are picking up on what you are expecting them to. — DingoJones

I think people are getting what they want from my answers.

(imagine this in a high, English style dialect, framed in a tone of up and down expression): Monstrous, you say, because I drew out the implications of your own egoism? I do say, I mean, after all, you are the one who accused yourself of it. I mean, where ever did you get the notion that it would be a good idea to lead with it as a description of yourself? — JerseyFlight

This person is a proof of it.

I think people are getting what they want from my answers. — Gus Lamarch

Not if what they want is a clear answer. Maybe your right and everyone talking to you is a bad actor, but if you used some charity when considering why your message isnt getting across then you might also consider the possibility that people do not understand exactly what you mean. (Rather than having some shortcoming or bias that prevents them from doing so.)
If you then ask why they arent getting it you can consider that you might need to expand on your ideas so that they do, as opposed to just repeating the same thing you yourself notice they didnt get the first time.

This person is a proof of it. — Gus Lamarch

Well if that was proof, it would only be proof of one persons error.

So far only I have been the one to declare my point in how to adapt to theism. And it was through an "conscious-unconscious" belief in it. — Gus Lamarch

Spinoza advocated something similar. He believed that intelligence is too uncommon to allow humanity to live without the guidance of religion.

:clap:

So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence. — Bertrand Russell

Not that I can recall. And in fact Paul was quite adamant that intelligence was to be destroyed by God:

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the intelligence of the intelligent I will bring to nought." 1 Corinthians 1:19

I don't know whether it's the case, but I wonder whether Paul wrote this letter after he visited Athens. I suspect his encounter with the Athenian philosophers didn't go quite as well as it's said it did.

What makes you think that? (The Athenian exposure bit)

:mask:

Whatever did God say about abortion? — tim wood

Nothing, but a universal Christianity is IMPOSSIBLE because they will be divided on that issue

If I have to, I would do it. We are not yet at the point of time where forceful conversion is being made by the state. - — Gus Lamarch

So secular martyr, bad. Christian martyr, good. Explain!

I wonder whether Paul wrote this letter after he visited Athens. I suspect his encounter with the Athenian philosophers didn't go quite as well as it's said it did. — Ciceronianus the White

I just love the picture of this.

Athenians: "Did you just say faith makes you right?"

Paul: "yes, that's right, I said the righteous live by faith."

:lol: :lol:

Christianity is as brutal as Islam. — Gregory

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

Shaivism and Christianity are cultural phenomena. Culture isn't a Christian phenomenon.

He believed that intelligence is too uncommon to allow humanity to live without the guidance of religion. — Janus

Yes, I agree completely with that.

So secular martyr, bad. Christian martyr, good. Explain! — Gregory

How can a "secular martyr" exist if secular people don't have a purpose to die for, a way of life to die for, values to die for, etc... Secular people only have their own subjectiveness, which destroys them from the inside - implosion of society: The ancient near east saw that, the romans saw that, and we are seeing it happen again, and we are doing nothing to prevent it -.

but a universal Christianity is IMPOSSIBLE because they will be divided on that issue — Gregory

I'm not defending the concept of an ecumenical church, but of Christianity as a whole, with all its ramifications - being it catholic, orthodox or protestant -.

Culture isn't a Christian phenomenon. — jorndoe

Yet, it molded culture in a way that the two of them were intertwined.

Not if what they want is a clear answer. — DingoJones

What they want is not an answer because they already think they have one - subjectiveness -.

How can a "secular martyr" exist if secular people don't have a purpose to die for, a way of life to die for, values to die for, etc... Secular people only have their own subjectiveness, — Gus Lamarch

False in everyway. Believing in super-Daddy and his son Superman (jesus) may give some people meaning, but we find meaning in other ways

I'm not defending the concept of an ecumenical church, but of Christianity as a whole, with all its ramifications - being it catholic, orthodox or protestant -. — Gus Lamarch

This is a distinction without a difference. You seem to believe Christians should unite and force secularists to be Christian in order to defend the West. You don't even believe in the West in that case though!

You don't even believe in the West in that case though! — Gregory

End of the discussion - again -.

You keep saying that. You obviously want to be Christian but can't believe and your solution is to force others to be Christian

If Christians are to unite and try to force secularists to be nominal Christians, what are they going to do to people who think their particular Christianity alone saves and that it alone should be imposed by the State ( Feenyites, SSPX, SSPV, the Dimond brothers, etc etc)? Are they too to be put into rehabilitation camps?

There came a point where the miracles, the resurrection, the immaculate conception, the trinity, the stories of the saints, the claim that Christianity was the only true path to salvation, couldn't be accepted as convincingly true — Ciceronianus the White

But unfortunately (at least I think so) Christianity's emphasis and insistence on its peculiar beliefs overwhelmed its uncomfortable assimilation of pre-Christian philosophy, especially as far as its "flock" was concerned if not its shepards. So as Christian doctrine became unbelievable, and God was despaired of, nihilism and other alternatives were accepted by some. God being dead, all was permissible, etc.

So perhaps nihilism is the result of the failure of Christianity, or that failure contributed to it. — Ciceronianus the White

I think the traditional tenets or doctrine of Christianity are no longer believable in the "literal interpretation or meaning" to the educated and informed mind.
The way moderns interpret and understand the world is not compatible with literal Christian doctrine.
For this reason, I think, traditional religion is doomed unless unless it reinterprets or reinvents itself in a more figurative or mystical or mythical sense.
Myths have meanings, stories have lessons even if they are not literal true or historically accurate.
One can look at falling church membership and attendance particularly in the Western World as evidence that the Church is becoming less relevant in the modern age.
Nihilism still lacks appeal as a worldview and the most common response is "spiritual but not religious or not affiliated with any traditional organized religion". Non the less most people think there is some larger meaning or purpose to life even if they can no longer accept the literal teachings of the church.