/lit/ - Literature

>>19343795
>I would side with Christ over the truth
but Christ is the truth lol

>>19343803
If you think you can rationally know the truth, I am afraid you are the worst sort of fool. All is based on faith.

>>19343812
>all is based on faith
yeaah dude like nothing is real bro we just believe things we don't know if they're real duudee even 1+1 we just believe but if we say 3+1=11 is real then that becomes truth because we believe its true broo
thats deeeeep

>>19343821
1+1+1=1 according to christians

>>19343821
>math is so perfect, lemme just make an all encompassing logical system from it

>>19343879
Christians love characteristic 2 (the worst one)

>>19343879
1/3+1/3+1/3

>>19343879
That’s not what Trinitarianism is lol

>>19343795

Yes, and you are one of those who have misunderstood its misunderstanding.

>>19344017
how so?

>>19343821
Fucking retard.

>>19343795
>Its a painful and wonderful quote
True
>he isnt saying that he would maintain his cope despite facts
He is though

>>19344017

Absolute truth is cological, and in syncord, with Christ; you are aggrandizing a superficial, vain quote by tautologically repeating its reactionary nonsense; "Protestantistic" indeed.

>>19343967
Heresy

>>19343821
Why are you being such a dick to that guy? He didn't even say anything mean. Stop giving Christians a bad look please.

It's because without hope and capacity for good (represented by Christ), not only do you not have hope for good, but there's an empty space meant for potential left in there that will be, in the best case scenario, replaced by not-good, but more plausibly, by evil. We know that evil destroys ourselves and others, so it's best to avoid.
It's not an opposite of Nietzsche's ideas, silly, Nietzsche condemned God's death instead of seeing it as a triumph- he also feared the inevitable evil that follows the disappearance of good.

>>19343821

>Is his "I would side with Christ over the truth" quote the most misunderstood quote ever?

No, but it certainly is the dumbest quote ever

>>19343879
This nigga really don't know what fractions are

>>19344480
why does Mickey seem to think that:
everything is reducible to the absurd acts of chemicals => the chemicals cannot perceive the truth? or is he saying that there is no reason to believe them because their acts are absurd?

>>19344551
Hey anon, think you meant to say: "Why does Mickey seemingly think that:". The way you've phrased it makes it seem like you're wondering; "Why is the impression that I'm getting that.....". There's no way for us to know!
Anyway the idea is that Donald is implying that chemicals are not to be trusted in manners of knowledge and love, Mickey is saying that, if that is true, chemicals therefore can't be trusted when they tell you that love is merely caused by their absurd acts.

>>19344546
see>>19343967
>>19344347

>>19344581
>Hey anon, think you meant to say: "Why does Mickey seemingly think that:". The way you've phrased it makes it seem like you're wondering; "Why is the impression that I'm getting that.....". There's no way for us to know!
thanks! i didn't know the difference

>Anyway the idea is that Donald is implying that chemicals are not to be trusted in manners of knowledge and love, Mickey is saying that, if that is true, chemicals therefore can't be trusted when they tell you that love is merely caused by their absurd acts.
but does Donald really imply that? my impression is that Donald is merely saying that the absurd acts of chemicals excludes absolute, intrinstic 'values' (good and bad) – nihilism basically – but not that the chemicals make it impossible to know cold, impersonal verities, yet that's what Mickey seemingly answers and his argument goes from there, which seems like a bit of a non-sequitur

>>19343879
it's 1 = 1
or really just 1

>>19344610
Wouldn't call it a non-sequitur specifically because whoever made the edit made sure to have Donald say "we KNOW and love", hence Mickey saying that Donald's knowing of the chemicals' absurd acts, much like love, is caused solely by said acts, and therefore holds no intrinsic value, and as such can't be used to determine the value of love, or indeed of that very piece of knowledge.

yeah that's the point, how do people misunderstand that?

>>19343795
>basically leap of faith
idk what to say anon, but yes it's a good cope and a beautiful lie
unironically some of as are not strong enough to make it

Also regarding the first snarky comment I've made, in your sentence, the predicate was "seem", so the whole sentence was centered around the readers' perceptions, rather than whatever Mickey's thinking. Not something I'd talk about but I did drink

>>19344422
>It's because without hope and capacity for good (represented by Christ)

Many colonized and genocided people would like to have a word with you

>>19344838
I don't get it. What would they say to me?

>>19344851
They'd probably tell you how Jesus was the most demonic monster they've ever witnessed, and hope and goodness is pretty much the last thing they would associate with it

>>19344868
damn, you're retarded?

>>19344868
Still not entirely sure what you mean.
I'll say this, if you claim to have seen Jesus, the historical character most meticulously presented as the personification of objective good- and this is a secular perspective, mine is that He is God and totally incapable of imperfection- as demonic, certainly, you haven't seen Jesus.
I suspect you're refering to people who have used Christianity as a means to expand their empires? They have not shown Christ to anyone.

>>19343879
>>19343879
>filtered by the difference between ousia and hypostasis
The trinity is the ultimate pleb-filter

>>19344868
Well, everyone's a critic!

>>19343879
1*1*1=1
ftfy

>>19343879
>19344546
>three "who"s
>one "what"
>this still BTFOs atheists

>>19344919
>I'll say this, if you claim to have seen Jesus, the historical character most meticulously presented as the personification of objective good
According to the ones Christianity didn't enslave or kill, go on

>mine is that He is God and totally incapable of imperfection- as demonic, certainly, you haven't seen Jesus.
Then you're just another mindless zealot, congratulations. You've taken your need for truth, such as the myriad of crimes perpetrated in the name of Jesus (the destruction of ancient Europe, the torture and murder of pretty much anyone who disagrees with your religion, and the invasion, plundering and enslavement of anyone outside of the Christian world), and exhanged it for the need to obey. In this case an ancient cult leader whose "objective goodness" seems to differ surprisingly little from the objective goodness a Scientologist subscribes to L. Ron Hubbard

>>19346567
What does? Your mental gymnastics?

>>19343795
Let's forget what Fedya actually meant for a second. Your formulation of Dostoevsky is wrong for ignoring facts in protest. Willingly basing one's life and what one values on anything besides the facts out of 'cope' as you put it is simple weakness.

To believe that human haecceity and 'reality' are in fundamental conflict is a classic mistake of the pessimistic tradition. 'Cope' is only necessary for those who believe divinity or the 'meaningfulness of life' can only be understood in terms of some kind of transcendence of our biological (ultimately genetic) endowment.

In fact, no such transcendence is even conceivable, let alone necessary.

Think about it like this -- human nature can be conceived of as a set of structures which describe and account for those properties which are common to all humans.

There are many such properties, such as the property of being featherless bipeds, that of binocular vision, having the language capacity, and having a sense of ethics based, fundamentally, on a sense of love for other people, and the meaning we derive from it.

In the present, we can't describe all of these structures equally well. We can describe the visual system very accurately. We've made a lot of progress in our understanding of the language capacity and cognition more generally since the 1950s (a very recent development). But we've made very little progress in understanding the structures which underlie our moral faculties. Even less in those which underlie how we feel love, or derive meaning.

In the cases of vision, perception, cognition, and language, we spent most of our history describing their underlying structure through occasionally very accurate, but also very imprecise means -- through poetry, novels, philosophy and the like. Eventually, our research evolved to the point where these structures were described much more rigorously and precisely through scientific means.

There's little reason to believe the faculties by which we feel meaning, or duty, or even love will forever rest outside the purview of more precise, scientific understanding.

When we say the universe is indifferent (a phrase I have objections to for many reasons), we act as though the universe is something easily separable from the structures we use to describe it -- the universe is definitionally inhuman, and therefore 'indifferent'. But our understanding of the universe is fundamentally human, as the structures that describe it are inseparable from the nature (or 'limits', to put it in misleadingly pessimistic terms) of our own human faculties.

To think that the 'cope' of denying truth is more beautiful and humanizing than accepting the truth is itself an anti-human concept. It hubristically posits that there is a coherent notion of 'reality' that humans can speak of which is both separate from and more fundamental than humanity itself, described by the structures, extant or not-yet-extant, which comprise it.

(char limit, continuing in reply)

>>19346750
(cont.)

If we weren't human, maybe we could coherently speak of the 'truth' or 'reality' your Dostoevsky speaks of, and acknowledge the vacuity of love and meaning that its existence entails.

But we are human. Reality is human, and so is truth. Love is human. Meaning.

The long nightmare of our collective benightedness is over. To have structure is to follow universal laws, whose inviolability inevitably comprise 'limits'. But recognizing that we are humans, not magical omniscient beings, but humans, is to recognize that truth, love, beauty and meaning are never in discord with our nature. We couldn't even conceive of them without our humanity.

To see the contradiction your Dostoevsky sees between love and the laws of reality doesn't just debase the sacred nature of humanity, it debases the human nature of reality.

>>19346753
>But recognizing that we are humans, not magical omniscient beings, but humans, is to recognize that truth, love, beauty and meaning are never in discord with our nature. We couldn't even conceive of them without our humanity.
Tell that to the Krugers of the world who use the Bible to establish racial hierarchies so cruel even whites find them abhorrent.

Honestly, everything you just wrote is laughably naive in light of how Christianity actually functions. All this truth and love nonsense is just to lure you in, in order to make you obey its teachings. Basically, Christianity hasn't changed since its central story, not that of Jesus on the cross, but that of Abraham sacrificing his own son. The latter holds the true core value of Christianity and Abrahamic religion in general, which is obedience over everything, even over reality and decency.

>>19346618
>According to the ones Christianity didn't enslave or kill, go on
According to the Bible, anon.
>the myriad of crimes perpetrated in the name of Jesus
What grand naivete. People have killed in the name of everything. Are we to renounce love because crimes of passion exist?
>the destruction of ancient Europe, the torture and murder of pretty much anyone who disagrees with your religion, and the invasion, plundering and enslavement of anyone outside of the Christian world
So people have used Christianity to justify their expansionist ambitions. How is that Christianity's fault? Even more, how is it Christ's fault?
>cult leader, seems to differ surprisingly little from the objective goodness a Scientologist subscribes to L. Ron Hubbard
Have you not read the Bible once? No passages, not out of curiosity? Have you no idea what Christ teaches? It only "seems" that way to you because you're gravely uninformed. Wait a second
>destruction of ancient Europe
Anon, you're not one of those silly pagans, are you? Aside from paganism being, you know, silly, you do know that pagans actually killed for their gods, right?

>>19346932
>According to the Bible, anon.
And according to the Quran Christians worship the cross. It's almost like arguments from authority are fallacious or something
>People have killed in the name of everything. Are we to renounce love because crimes of passion exist?
No, but then again there's also no love cult that claims to be the sole possesor of absolute truth and will burn me to death if I don't believe in the power of love enough.
>So people have used Christianity to justify their expansionist ambitions. How is that Christianity's fault? Even more, how is it Christ's fault?
That's easy, Christianity claims to be the only correct religion out there, and claims that everything that deviates from it is wrong by default. All you need now is a few fanatics who are willing to actually act on this belief, and the cowardly moderates will then usually tag along, slowly realize that they too can be targeted for not being zealous enough, desperately get rid of the psychotic fanatics and eventually claim that that wasn't real Christianity and that real Christianity has never been tried. Sounds familiar?
>Aside from paganism being, you know, silly, you do know that pagans actually killed for their gods, right?
Yes, but they also tolerated other gods and religions. That's the "poly" part of polytheism. It guarentees that society won't fall into the hands of the most violent fanatic who will mindlessly murder everyone

By the way, I love how you consider polytheism "silly", despite that your golden rule is from Hammurabi, your end times scenario is from Zoroaster, and your philosophy is from Plato and Aristotle. Once again, your own deeds contradict your words

>>19346881
You misinterpreted what I was saying. I'm not Christian in the least (though I appreciate the literary qualities of sections of the Tanakh). I'm secular, and an atheist in most senses of the term. I don't think the astika traditions of Brahmanism are any good, either.

Christianity works in the way you described, as does every other religion that has come close to association with paramilitary or state power, including the roving genocidal pseudo-Theravada monks of Myanmar's 969 Movement.

>>19346881
>>19346999 here,
I don't think truth or love are Christian concepts at all. Maybe re-read what I wrote. I made no suggestion that I'm Christian, or think the values of the New Testament have been reflected in any politically-relevant instantiation of Christrianity, because I am not Christian, never have been, and have no interest in ever being one.

>>19346988
>And according to the Quran Christians worship the cross. It's almost like arguments from authority are fallacious or something
Dimitri Karamazov is a warmonger because a Dosto fan beat me up. The argument you're making is just stupid, maybe try to rephrase it.
>No, but then again there's also no love cult that claims to be the sole possesor of absolute truth and will burn me to death if I don't believe in the power of love enough.
Did a Christian bully you in high school?
Anon, read at least part of the Bible. The Book of Mark, maybe. See what God asks of you. People who claimed to be Christian used this religion to justify their ambitions. Nothing more, nothing less. This is not like Islam, where they are asked to convert unbelievers and kill disbelievers. Christians are not asked to do such a thing. Some people have, it was wrong of them. Nothing to do with Christ.
>All you need now is a few fanatics who are willing to actually act on this belief
So take it up with the Christian fanatics who stuffed you in the locker.
But again, naive answer. People who went to war in medieval times rarely went to war out of some sort of religious duty. They had no choice most of the time. Or do you think all the people who fought in the crusades were Christian?
>Yes, but they also tolerated other gods and religions. That's the "poly" part of polytheism
No, only multiple gods, never multiple religions. Look up Roman syncretism.
>It guarentees that society won't fall into the hands of the most violent fanatic who will mindlessly murder everyone
What pagan society are you talking about? Certainly not Mesoamericans? The pagan enthusiasts who sacrificed enemies to their gods? Who sacrificed their own people to their gods?
I take part of my argument back, Christians were right to kill Mesoamericans

>>19347042
>Dimitri Karamazov is a warmonger because a Dosto fan beat me up.
That doesn't even address the point you're literally quoting
>Did a Christian bully you in high school?
Look, you can stop this faux alpha male tuff guy act, because it doesn't work outside of your filter bubble. I've read the Bible cover to cover, and the history of its compilation, and the history of the cultural context it was developed in, and the history of the development of its religious themes. All you're giving me are just stock answers that I've heard a million times before
>People who went to war in medieval times rarely went to war out of some sort of religious duty.
Yes, Charlemagne definitely didn't go to war with Widukind over his refusal to become a Christian. Einhard also didn't brag about the massacres of Charlemagne in the Annales Regni Francorum
>No, only multiple gods, never multiple religions. Look up Roman syncretism
Religion as we know it today didn't even exist back then, so that would've been pretty hard. Anyway, it's completely besides the point, since the Romans wrote about their own practices, and they didn't murder the German tribes for worshipping Odin, they simply called him Mercury. They would go to war with them, but to squash rebellions, not to try and control the minds and thoughts of every single person in the empire
>What pagan society are you talking about?
The Roman one, where human sacrifice was banned by the senate in 97 BC. By then though, human sacrifice had already become a fringe phenomenon, and was virtually never practiced. Also, I don't understand what your big hangup on human sacrifice is, since the one done by Abraham is seen as rather noble by your belief system

>>19343821
Your example is completely retarded because 3+1 would equal 11 if we agreed so. Numbers don't exist outside of human society.

>>19343795
>a weird Christian mirror of Nietzsche
Other way around, bucko

>>19347109
>That doesn't even address the point you're literally quoting
The point is that it's fallacious to make out the Christian doctrine by reading another book. The only place to get it is the Bible, not even Christians all the time, since you might encounter, people who claim to be religious for personal gain.
>Look, you can stop this faux alpha male tuff guy act
No act, you legitimately come across as one of those Thulean Perspective types who harbor deep resentment for Christianity, and more often than not, this is just rebellion against the Christian society in which you were so gravely wronged. If it's not bullying, it's strict religious parents. If it's not that, maybe a teacher. And so on.
>I've read the Bible cover to cover
Huge waste of time for you, you didn't understand a thing.
>Charlemagne
Civilized Europe. Although I'm sure you see that as a negative, what with your infantile paganism.
>go to war with Widukind over his refusal to become a Christian
Do you seriously believe that the main cause was Christianity and not Charlemagne wanting to expand his domain?
>They would go to war with them, but to squash rebellions, not to try and control the minds and thoughts of every single person in the empire
Again, do you, in your heart of hearts, sincerely believe that Christians fought Ottomans for hundreds of years, because of religion? That they conquered the Americas, just to convert savages to Christianity? This is past naivete, it's stupidity.
>By then though, human sacrifice had already become a fringe phenomenon, and was virtually never practiced
In Rome. Humans were being sacrificed by pagans well into the 10th century in Northern Europe.
>since the one done by Abraham
>done
Are you sure you read the Bible? Maybe read it again, so that time wasted could turn into time invested into developing a better understanding of it.
Maybe try the Sermon on the Mount. We have Christianity to thank for all sacrifices becoming forbidden all over Europe (and indeed, the civilized world).

>>19343795
Basically yeah. Too many people obsess over knowing the truth in their life rather than living a beautiful and worthy life. What value is there in knowing truth if you live a worthless life in pursuit of it? Dostoy is one of the very, very few people in history who got what living is about.

>>19344838
They deserved to be colonized and genocided as it was part of Gods plan.

>>19347242
>The point is that it's fallacious to make out the Christian doctrine by reading another book.
No, because Muslims say the exact same thing about the Quran, which was originally my point, I guess that went over your head. You don't accept your own logic when others use it for their infallible words of the Almighty, why not?
>this is just rebellion against the Christian society in which you were so gravely wronged.
Most Western societies are in no way Christian. Certainly not societies with freedom of speech or elected officials, because that's strictly forbidden by the Bible
>Huge waste of time for you, you didn't understand a thing.
Nice moving of your goalposts, you went from reading the Bible to "understanding" it, although I get the impression that "understanding" and "agreeing with" are the same thing in this case
>Civilized Europe.
Charlemagne wasn't civilized, despite christianizing Europe? Way to throw him under the bus
>Do you seriously believe that the main cause was Christianity and not Charlemagne wanting to expand his domain?
According to Einhard, it was all about Christianity
>Again, do you, in your heart of hearts, sincerely believe that Christians fought Ottomans for hundreds of years, because of religion?
If it wasn't, why did the fucking Pope declare the war then? Is the Pope just a king with a different hat to you? What the fuck are you talking about?
>That they conquered the Americas, just to convert savages to Christianity?
You're telling me that their main source of meaning had no impact on their actions? Also, very curious how Christianity is the sole factor when their deeds are good, and played absolutely no role when it's about genocides, even though we know from their own writings they specifically killed them for being fallen heathens.
>Humans were being sacrificed by pagans well into the 10th century in Northern Europe.
And I'm sure the Christian writers who wrote about this had no bias whatsoever
>>done
Again, that wasn't the point I was making. Why was the sacrifice of Isaac an example of righteous obedience, and all the other sacrifices wicked and evil?

Honestly, all I see here is goalpost moving and red herrings

>>19347289
And do you deserve to be colonized as part of Allah's plan?

>>19347409
Yes. The west is decadent and corrupt. Tribulation is necessary

>>19347405
>No, because Muslims say the exact same thing about the Quran, which was originally my point, I guess that went over your head. You don't accept your own logic when others use it for their infallible words of the Almighty, why not?
It also doesn't matter what Muslims say about the Quran, what matters is what the Quran says. Which, by the way, refer to >>19347042
>>19347405
>Most Western societies are in no way Christian. Certainly not societies with freedom of speech or elected officials, because that's strictly forbidden by the Bible
What are you on about?
>Nice moving of your goalposts, you went from reading the Bible to "understanding" it, although I get the impression that "understanding" and "agreeing with" are the same thing in this case
Are you fucking serious? Have I been baited all along? Yes, I meant understand it. Reading is not just looking at words. Oh my God.
>Charlemagne wasn't civilized, despite christianizing Europe? Way to throw him under the bus
What I said was, "Charlemagne civilized Europe".
>According to Einhard, it was all about Christianity
According to me, it wasn't. Try harder.
>If it wasn't, why did the fucking Pope declare the war then? Is the Pope just a king with a different hat to you? What the fuck are you talking about?
Because the Ottomans had been fucking with Europe for years by that point? Seriously oscillating between trolling and retarded at this point.
>Also, very curious how Christianity is the sole factor when their deeds are good
It's not, no one claims it is. Humanity's natural predisposition towards progress is, Christianity just facilitated that with a set of very beneficial laws and doctrines.
>even though we know from their own writings they specifically killed them for being fallen heathens.
>We killed them because they were heathens, my fellow Christians, not because we wanted their land :^)
>And I'm sure the Christian writers who wrote about this had no bias whatsoever
At this point you're being retarded. You can just look up human sacrifice on wikipedia and see how that is wrong.
>Why was the sacrifice of Isaac an example of righteous obedience, and all the other sacrifices wicked and evil?
But Isaac wasn't sacrificed. I don't know what point you're making. God said, "don't do human sacrifice". It was a test of faith. Either you're too stupid to understand this concept or are arguing in bad faith. Funny, since one of the first things you said was "All you're giving me are just stock answers that I've heard a million times before" as if you're not making the most mundane accusations.

>>19347423
So if IS rolls into your town, they're allowed to kill you?

>>19347465
>What are you on about?
The 2nd Commandment and the fact that Israel didn't have President David
>According to me, it wasn't.
And Einhard knew Charlemagne personally, so your opinion means jackshit
>Because the Ottomans had been fucking with Europe for years by that point?
Right, and why had they done that? Could there perhaps have been some kind of religious difference between them?
>It's not, no one claims it is.
Goodness doesn't come exclusively from God? I honestly wonder whether you have read the Bible, never mind me
>You can just look up human sacrifice on wikipedia
>on wikipedia
Holy fuck, are you serious?
>But Isaac wasn't sacrificed.
And neither was Iphigenia, the daughter of Agamemnon, when the goddess Artemis asked for her sacrifice, but stopped Agamemnon at the last moment. Should we worship Artemis now?

>>19347517
>The 2nd Commandment and the fact that Israel didn't have President David
What the FUCK does that have to do with free speech and elected officials? You're losing it
>And Einhard knew Charlemagne personally, so your opinion means jackshit
And that makes everything he says true?
>Right, and why had they done that? Could there perhaps have been some kind of religious difference between them?
>Why do expansionist empires expand?
I will say however, it does suck how the Quran itself encourages Muslims to kill disbelievers. So you might have a point with them. With Christians however, if they do do that, they don't act in accordance with that.
>Goodness doesn't come exclusively from God? I honestly wonder whether you have read the Bible, never mind me
First you were talking about Christians taking credit for developments happening in Christian societies, now you're talking about goodness coming from God? You are losing it.
>wikipedia
As opposed to other sources which might prove too difficult for you to comprehend. Hence, "JUST look up"
>Should we worship Artemis now?
Do you think people worship God only because he stopped the sacrifice?
Oh my God shut the fuck up man. I was joking before about the bullying but now I see it as a very realistic possibility, seeing how stupid and obnoxious you are.

>>19347590
>What the FUCK does that have to do with free speech and elected officials?
You think there will be much freedom of religion when you're only allowed to worship one God? Do you think there will be much democracy when your own book tells you leaders should be anointed by God himself, and can't be elected by fallible men?
>I will say however, it does suck how the Quran itself encourages Muslims to kill disbelievers.
You're right, the Book of Josua definitely doesn't have the same sentiment
>You are losing it.
Okay then, back to your original point, since you appear to have the memory of a goldfish
>>So people have used Christianity to justify their expansionist ambitions. How is that Christianity's fault?
You think expansionist ambitions and a religion that insists that every person on the planet should believe its teachings aren't related at all? Are you for real? The way the colonizers treated the natives differed very little from the way the Christians (or any group of monotheists for that matter) treated pagans. Do you seriously think that the colonists, in an era when pretty much no one doubted the teachings of Christianity, didn't view their conquests through a religious lens, even when they explicitly tell us they do? Just look at the writings of the colonizers of Africa. They explicitly call the natives uncivilized heathens, and explicitly write how their conquests are all about trying to expand Christendom. Nowhere do we find this materialistic fantasy you refer to, and absolutely everywhere do we find references to your holy book. Do you seriously believe that the moment they began their conquest, they all magically turned into ardent secularists or something? What are you on about?
>As opposed to other sources which might prove too difficult for you to comprehend.
>my sources are just too deep for you
Right, or you don't have any because you're full of shit
>Do you think people worship God only because he stopped the sacrifice?
You should tell that to yourself from a few moments ago:
>>19347465
>But Isaac wasn't sacrificed. I don't know what point you're making. God said, "don't do human sacrifice". It was a test of faith.

>>19343895
>blocks your path

>>19347672
>You think there will be much freedom of religion when you're only allowed to worship one God?
There is today? Only I guess you're going to argue that no Christian societies exist today. Which is retarded, do you think only strict theocracies are religious societies? You should channel all that negative energy towards Muslims and Sharia Law.
>Do you think there will be much democracy when your own book tells you leaders should be anointed by God himself, and can't be elected by fallible men?
God Himself says, "render onto Caesar". Again, you're either lying or very misinformed. Are you SURE you read the New Testament?
>You're right, the Book of Josua definitely doesn't have the same sentiment
>This one tiny passage can be interpreted as encouraging Christians to kill disbelievers and it offsets all the rest of the Bible
Losing my patience
>wall of texts rephrasing what I've already disputed 5 times
Almost there
>You should tell that to yourself from a few moments ago:
Alright I'm done. Back to myfarog you go

>>19347735
>There is today? Only I guess you're going to argue that no Christian societies exist today. Which is retarded, do you think only strict theocracies are religious societies?
You keep accusing me of not having read the Bible, yet I honestly wonder whether you have. Besides, freedom of speech and democracy find their origins in polytheistic Greece, and isn't found once in the Bible. Furthermore, it's explicitly not in line with any of the teachings of Christianity, which knows only one absolute truth that is not arguable. This is further underline by Christian rulers, such as the emperor Theodosius who banned all forms of polytheism and declared everyone outside of Christianity to be insane and subjected to the death penalty, and Christian theology, where theologians like Dionusius the Areopagite insisted that the way society is ordered should resemble the hierarchy of heaven. I have absolutely no idea how in the hell you can fit either "one man, one vote" or "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". These two are obvious deviations from Christian doctrine, and in their current form find their starting point in the Enlightenment, which by the way started in opposition to the rule of kings who, you guessed it, were appointed by God Almighty
>God Himself says, "render onto Caesar"
And once again, this is your very modern interpretation of this, and not anything that was widespread before the Enlightement, and certainly not in a single Christian state
>>the Book of Josua
>>This one tiny passage
>Book
>passage
Holy fuck, learn how to read
>>wall of texts rephrasing what I've already disputed 5 times
No, you didn't, you just endlessly used mental gymnastics to whitewash your religion. Very poorly, if I may say so, since I have historical records to back up my claims, whereas you have wikipedia and some sources that you'll totally show me, but are really just too brilliant to show here

>>19343795
pretty straightforward quote
had never heard of anyone twisting it

>>19343795
This is the same stance Camus takes btw. People often seem to misunderstand what hes saying but its essentially this. He doesn't say Christ specifically but it's in the same ballpark, wanting the world to have the objective meaning humans crave and acting as though this were true anyway.