Notice how they do not make reference to historical documents? — Banno

To refer like you do, the specific historical documents that you pick only those who fit your position?That's ridiculous. Even the obvious fact with Egyptians oppressing Jews, you almost demonstrated that it was Jews fault! So what else to say?

Maybe you should notice that your base that you start your argument is fundamental wrong. You attribute human nature's weaknesses to religions and especially Christianity. Using historical errors like it was the first which was intolerant and persuade political power. So what to discuss here about? It's obvious that your mind is locked there and a conversation won't help.

while Capitol Police officers were killed in the building,
— Michael Zwingli
This never happened. Why did you write it? — tim wood

One Capitol Police officer was killed, and apparently four other people. The officer died the following day after, from injuries sustained while being beaten during the rampage. The foolwing article elucidates:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/us/who-died-in-capitol-building-attack.html
From the article:
"After serving in the Air National Guard and dreaming of becoming a police officer, Brian D. Sicknick joined the Capitol Police force in 2008. He died the day after he was overpowered and beaten by rioters from the mob at the Capitol."

I had thought, before checking in response to your post, Tim, that two officers had been killed, but one is bad enough, in my view.

A truly unremarkable reply. If my citations are selective, then out them with your own citations.

Hmm. The thesis is that monotheism and power lead to intolerance; that Christian intolerance became evident as they gained politically. The Jews in the main lack power; and were they do have power they are not backwards in exercising it.

That is indeed one solution to the incoherence of the trinity. Another is to simply reject it.

To my eye, and I suppose you will agree, the dive into darkness that followed the destruction of classical culture was tragic.

Gibbon was a Roman Catholic convert. If anything he is at pains to be even-handed . Any anti-religious bias is in the eye of the religious, in their need for comfortable lies. — Banno

Gibbon was a Roman Catholic for exactly a year and a half, after which a threatened disinheritance caused his immediate recapitulation back into Anglicanism (which, after all, differs from Catholicism only by a presently defunct monarchial politics). This, of course, evidences a quite laissez faire approach to faith in general. Many historians have noted that Gibbon's general tone, even if his factual recording was true, displayed a certain bias against religion throughout the D&F. Certainly, they are not all Christian apologists. Perhaps his father's having bullied him back into the Church of England contributed to this tone of Gibbon in the work...who knows?

Notice here the pile-on of apologists? — Banno

Oho, please don't take me for a Christian apologist, as I am quite firm in my atheism, and if anything, am more critical of Christianity than Gibbon ever was. I hope I was not included in your estimation.

What if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct? It isn't; no need for the "what if..." — Banno

But, it should be the goal of a religion to avoid being preposterous, as all theistic (of both mono- and poly- types) religions obviously are. We humans must be able to devise a religion which renders purpose to life, provides meaningful ritual, and incorporates a moral code, yet does not stand in obvious violation of reality, or of human nature.

Gibbon was a Roman Catholic for exactly a year and a half, — Michael Zwingli

That long? I thought it less.

Consider that the accusations of bias result from his choosing a close analysis of the documentation, as opposed to the myth of martyrdom and persecution promulgated by Christianity. That is it is the result of his insisting on doing history instead of hagiography. If his history needs revision, as it no doubt does, then that is a task for historians.

But of course this is in the end irrelevant. That the discussion falls back on the character of the writer and not to the case presented is itself telling. For the facts are there.

Your position is false from its very on foundation. I explained you why. So either you don't see it or you pretend that you don't see it cause it will hurt your Ego(I would bet on that case) . Either way it's pointless.

To ask me bring historical documents as to prove wrong your unspeakable claim that Christianity was the first to be intolerant, proselytize and seek political power it's like asking me prove you that sky is blue.
So no thanks, I m not interested in trying to convince you about something that obvious. It's a waste of time.

Repeat your claim as often as you wish;

I explained you why. — dimosthenis9

Where? Quote it here. All you have done is make an unfounded assertion.

But thank you for posting again, and I encourage you to continue, since you repeatedly support my pointing out that:

Notice how they do not make reference to historical documents? Notice the ad hom nature of their arguments - that I hate Christianity, that Gibbon was anit-christian; the accusation suffices for them; no need for evidence.. Notice the non sequiturs - that there are tolerant Christians, hence Christianity as a religion must be tolerant. — Banno

...to wich we can now add the misrepresentation of my view here:

your unspeakable claim that Christianity was the first to be intolerant, proselytize and seek political power — dimosthenis9

Please, continue.

...to wich we can now add the misrepresentation of my view here: — Banno

Your views are misrepresented on their own. Don't worry. I didn't change anything.

Every religion(from the very first one) used and achieved political power. They are combined. And humans always used religions for other "purposes". Taking advantage of them.

It wasn't Christianity's privilege at all. It just seems that you find Christianity especially "guilty" for every humanity harm. It has to do with religions in general and not at all with Christianity itself. — dimosthenis9

Even the obvious fact with Egyptians oppressing Jews, you almost demonstrated that it was Jews fault! So what else to say? — dimosthenis9

Blames for all human nature weaknesses religions. As if behind them aren't people.
And after Christianity especially. That Logical row simply makes no sense at all. Add to all these, the historical error that Christianity was first to oppress others, be intolerant and seek political state and you will understand that there isn't much to argue about here. — dimosthenis9

Nothing to add further.

Every religion(from the very first one) used and achieved political power. They are combined. And humans always used religions for other "purposes". Taking advantage of them. — dimosthenis9

Nothing there is inconsistent with the destruction of classical culture by Christianity, nor with monotheism being inherently intolerant when in power.

you find Christianity especially "guilty" for every humanity harm. — dimosthenis9

Obvious ad hom.

Even the obvious fact with Egyptians oppressing Jews, you almost demonstrated that it was Jews fault! So what else to say? — dimosthenis9

I don't see the relevance of the situation of the jews here; except to promulgate the glorification of oppression. And yet another ad hom, this one seemingly saying that my claim is too successful.

Blames for all human nature weaknesses religions. As if behind them aren't people. And after Christianity especially. That Logical row simply makes no sense at all. Add to all these, the historical error that Christianity was first to oppress others, be intolerant and seek political state and you will understand that there isn't much to argue about here. — dimosthenis9

More disparagement of me rather than my argument, more irrelevancies.

I'm sorry if the historical evidence goes against you preferred myths. But that ain't down to me. I'm just pointing at what for you is an uncomfortable truth.

I don't see the relevance of the situation of the jews here; except to promulgate the glorification of oppression. And yet another ad hom, this one seemingly saying that my claim is too successful. — Banno

You don't see it but it's still there.
Told you already, it's obvious that your mind is locked there. So nothing useful to discuss about here. You fail to understand simple logical things or you pretend that you don't. Anyway so be then.

Cheers.

But of course this is in the end irrelevant. That the discussion falls back on the character of the writer and not to the case presented is itself telling. For the facts are there. — Banno

:up:

:wink:

So, doesn't preventing a war help survival? If so, isn't it an ethical decision and action?
— Alkis Piskas
Depending at what cost. — stoicHoneyBadger

What kind of cost? Can preventing a war cost more than conducting it? What could cost more than taking lives?

What could cost more than taking lives? — Alkis Piskas

Freedom! What if the cost of preventing a war is to surrender and live under an oppressive regime?

And all the days of Adam that he lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died. — Genesis 5:5

Clearly factual.

Freedom! What if the cost of preventing a war is to surrender and live under an oppressive regime? — stoicHoneyBadger

I have already brought this up the subject of freedom. I said "Other wars were started to gain independence (liberated from the yoke of an oppressor, etc.) These were done with the purpose to pretect the survival of the oppressed. So they can be considered ethical endeavours rather than unethical." Most probably you got the idea from me. But here it is out of the right context. Or, rather, it's not the right answer.

Gibbon's work — Michael Zwingli

And all the days of Adam that he lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.
— Genesis 5:5

Clearly factual. — Hermeticus

I called alternative facts when the talking snake showed up...

- Genesis 3

That's sounds like me. Ecce homo!

Even the obvious fact with Egyptians oppressing Jews, you almost demonstrated that it was Jews fault! — dimosthenis9

Outside of the Old Testament, there's very little evidence of Jews in Egypt, I'm afraid, before the time Egypt became a part of the Persian Empire in the 6th century B.C.E. There's evidence that certain Jews were serving as soldiers in Egypt at that time. There's no evidence they were slaves who built the pyramids; no evidence of the Exodus; no evidence of Moses being somehow affiliated with the Egyptian royal family, or even being there, for that matter, outside of the Bible. No evidence of Joseph and his amazing coat, either. These are simply the founding myths of the Jewish people.

It's apparent that Egypt held sway over what is now Israel from time to time, and it may well be that those who lived there then were oppressed in one way or another, or taken as slaves. But that's all we have, outside of the Bible.

he temples were not just left to collapse; they were brought to ruin; the statues did not fall because of mere age; they were pulled down. — Banno

Perhaps the most famous example is the destruction of the Serapeum in Alexandria, around 391 C.E. But the destruction of the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus by order of John Chrysostom, patriarch of Constantinople, which contained the great statute of Artemis considered one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, is up there as well. We're fortunate that the Christians didn't destroy the remarkable Pantheon in Rome, and were content merely to convert it to a church, as they did with many other temples.

Not to mention science's intolerance towards the non-scientific. — Thunderballs

It didn't extend to burning the non-scientific at the stake, though, and nobody expects the Scientific Inquisition. not even Monty Python.

Titus did destroy Judea and the Temple in Jerusalem, so to the extent the argument is made that polytheists stand for tolereance over their aggressive monotheistic neighbors, I don't see that — Hanover

The Roman's didn't lay waste to Judea and Jerusalem because the Jews were monotheists.

The Roman's didn't lay waste to Judea and Jerusalem because the Jews were monotheists. — Ciceronianus

Nor did the Jews lay waste to various other nations because they weren't monotheists.

I'd also argue that the Christians laid waste to all sorts of nations (as did the Romans) for all sorts of reasons that went well beyond religious differences.

Nor did the Jews lay waste to various other nations because they weren't monotheists.

I'd also argue that the Christians laid waste to all sorts of nations (as did the Romans) for all sorts of reasons that went well beyond religious differences. — Hanover

Well, Biblical accounts, and particularly the Book of Joshua, portray the Jews as laying waste to quite a number of cities and tribes in their conquest of the Promised Land. And though they may not have done so because they weren't monotheists, it can fairly be said they did so because they weren't Jews and didn't worship the Jewish God, who gave the Jews the Promised Land.

As for Christians, I believe you're right and other reasons are involved, but they have such a history of claiming they go to war because God wills it or that God is on their side in war--any war--it may be any reason is religious to them where war is concerned.

portray the Jews as laying waste to quite a number of cities and tribes in their conquest of the Promised Land. — Ciceronianus

There's also the genocide of Amelek

There's also the genocide of Amelek — Wheatley

I'm not making the claim the ancient Hebrews were a kind hearted bunch, but I do deny that their reasons for the wars were to kill infidels who wouldn't accept monotheism.

I also deny the historical accuracy of the Old Testament. That is, that didn't actually happen.

But anyway, since you brought up this story, the best I recall (and memory isn't always correct), was that the Amelek slaughter was ordered by God after the Hebrews were finally released from 400 years of Egyptian bondage at the hands of the Pharaohs only to be subject to an unprovoked attack by the Amelek tribe. God ordered the death of all their people, including killing all their animals. I think Saul spared the death of their king (Agag), but Solomon killed him the next day. Supposedly that failure eventually cost Saul the kingship. Fast forward 600 years to the Book of Esther and you'll note that the antagonist Haman (who attempted to slaughter all the Jews in the world) is referred to as Haman Hagagi, indicating he was of direct lineage of the king of Amelek. This means that Agag impregnated someone in the single day he was spared (or so the story goes).

What do we learn from this story? Kindness to evil is a sin. Compare and contrast to "turn the other cheek." Different ethical principles I guess, which is why the word "Judeo-Christian" ethics makes no sense to me.

Amelek tribe. God ordered the death of all their people, including killing all their animals. — Hanover

Yeah, and I was taught in Yeshivah that we don't know who Amelek is. (I also happen to know some Jewish fundamentalists who believe the Germans are Amelek.)