WHY DO ATHEISTS & LIBERALS WORSHIP THE GRECO-ROMAN PHILOSOPHERS & ISLAM BUT NOT CHRIST?

Grafix

I see.  According to you the news articles are rants.  Right got it.  Your responses truly are pathetic.

No, I don't think people wearing costumes necessarily represent demons.  I think people who organise government-sponsored ceremonies which demonstrate an unmistakably demonic message, loudly and clearly in art form, music form and enactment are obsessed with a Satanic proclivity, and given that CERN produced it, then there is every reasonable cause to perceive that.  If I were the lone thinker who received that impression, you might have something to laugh at.  The fact is it went around the world + on hundreds of YouTube videos all stating the same opinion.  Many provided a full run down on the actual interpretation of the presentation.

I presume you do have a clue about what the God of Satan looks like?  PROBABLY NOT.  Baphomet is the God of Satan and is portrayed as a goatman, as per the images below.  This knowledge is very ancient.  It goes right back  to antiquity, images found in inscriptions, in hieroglyphs on walls, on monuments, tablets and stele from archaeological digs, including ancient manuscripts, just in case you wanna claim I made it up.  You can search it on the Internet as well, but I guess that suggestion is futile.  Nevertheless I've put a link at the bottom of my post for you.

This is an image of the Satanic statue of Baphomet.  Below it is an image of the Satanic sigil assigned to Satan. Images of both and several other Satanic symbols were on full display at the Gotthard ceremony.

This is the Satanic Sigil.  It is an inverted pentgram, which is the symbol of Satan.  Satan also inverts crosses.  Why the inversions?  Because he wilfully and cleverly inverts the truth.



This is the logo of the Satanic Temple - A Satanic Church

    

An interpretation of the Gotthard Tunnel opening ceremony is provided in the video below.  Do you have an aversion to doing your own research?  You take absolutely no lead from the "starter" information I put in front of you, instead always coming back with remarks and accusations, demonstrating you research nothing and verify nothing..  Any person of reasonable intelligence would normally research the subject, before making the replies you do, but you just never do.  That then requires me to spell it all out for you.  Then you whine about my long posts.  Well that's easily fixed, Einstein.  Do the bloody research for yourself  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!




 If you click on ea image, you get a link to the website which posted it.  

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=IMage+of+Baphomet+God+of+Satan&t=avast&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-MA2S73YgLAU%2FW3vtPLaAnwI%2FAAAAAAAAwF4%2FuMzymWMlWWI0V8924iLcV3I-jQCLXdCBwCLcBGAs%2Fs1600%2Fbaphomet%252Bstatue%252Barkansas.jpg

Dee

@Grafix

MayCaesar

@Grafix

You are only illustrating my point. Every criticism of Christianity anyone makes you find invalid and immediately jump at talking about how the accuser is a faulty individual; almost every response you give to any part of criticism contains some sort of accusation against the person itself. Christianity, just like other similar ideologies which I have listed, is an ideology that is not up to debate or questioning: it promotes a set of hard rules, and any transgression from those rules is seen as a sin. Notice how the other three ideologies I mentioned have the same concepts: Islam has "haram", Socialism has "reactionism", and Fascism has "enemy of the people". This is not a random occurrence; it is a natural consequence of practicing any rigid doctrine.

Compare it to how the Greek philosophers saw it... They not only welcomed inconvenient questions; they believed that without those questions there is nothing to discuss. Who wants to talk about something everyone agrees on? Greek philosophers saw wisdom through hard arguments and loved it when they were defeated in a debate, because it meant they had learned something new and improved their understanding of the world.

The fundamental difference here is how rigid the system of view is: ideologies that promote hard truths and discourage further search and questioning become ridden with fantasies and easily weaponizable; ideologies that promote questioning and relativism, on the other hand, are the biggest enemy of state, which is why all totalitarian states always suppress and outlaw them. Have you ever heard of philosophical debates on whether god exists or not in Saudi Arabia, or philosophical debates on whether the Great Leader is divine in North Korea? No, because there is no such thing. Nor was there such thing as questioning Christianity in Christian theocracies. Those theocracies did not do anything the Bible does not suggest, they just enforced its suggestions by law, perhaps perverting the Biblical passages here and there, but acting in the spirit of the rigidity of the ideology.

Ever notice how every single open Christian that frequents this website constantly attacks Atheists, people following other religions, etc., generalising all of them into one big mass of "the deceived"? Notice also how open Atheists do not do the same towards those they disagree with? I have never heard an Atheist state, for example, that all religious people are driven by some hidden agenda, covered by a grand worldwide conspiracy. The secret is, we do not have a "holy book" telling us what to believe, hence we come to our own conclusions, and those conclusions are much less definitive than they would be if we believed in some book that claims to know everything.

You should really study the Ancient Greek religion well. They had gods constantly backstabbing each other and humans, and there was an entire theatre culture consisting of mocking gods. Humor, untamed humor, is another characteristic separating flexible ideologies from rigid ones: all Greek philosophers were huge jokers. Ever wondered why the Bible, the Quran, the Doctrine of Fascism or Das Kapital contain almost no humor and are written in a dry, dead-serious language? Humor is intimately tied to an open-minded, critical, thinking, questioning perception of reality, trying to see things from different perspectives; this is not something rigid ideologies can survive. Again, in totalitarian Christian, Islamic, Socialistic and Fascistic states joking about the official ideology was about the biggest transgression possible, and it was better to murder someone than, for example, to say, "I wonder if Allah likes peanut butter? Would explain all the brown sand on the Arabian Peninsula." - the latter is going to lead you to a terrible fate in many nations even today.

Finally, to your last point, I adore the US culture; it is a good thing that people like you are a very small minority here and your views barely affect anything. I like the US for its individualistic freedom-loving culture and people's friendliness and humor; your views I associate more with places like North Korea, and I have moved here instead of there for a reason.

Grafix

@MayCaesar - Spare me the crocodile tears.  You really are a piece.  Here are the facts ....

I criticised only your diatribe and pulled IT  apart.  Nothing else, certainly not you.  If you choose to take an objective critique personally, I've no control over your sensibilities.  It's hardly an excuse to now lie about that and pretend I attacked you personally.  I addressed every criticism to IT,  not to your persona at all, condemning only what you'd written. That's all.  The fact you need to now lie about that, says it all about you. 

You also lie about my criticisms of the attacks made by the many against Christianity.  I simply criticize the proclivity of atheism to criticize Christianity on a very flawed basis. It never changes. They base their attacks against Christ's teachings on the actions of flawed individuals.  Such criticisms ARE  themselves flawed.  They don't address the teachings, nor the laws of Christianity, its philosophy, nor its practice.  No.  Finding fault with the actions of flawed  individuals and then claiming those actions are representative of Christianity itself, is a deception.  That's what I criticize.  Such actions are far from representative of Christianity.  If you must criticize the actions of those individuals, then criticize the actions, not the philosophy.  It's not responsible for those actions.  In every case no attempt is made to actually address the ideology itself at all. 

If atheists at least tried to do that much, that would demonstrate some reasonable intellect, but they never do. Instead they select actions of individuals, conflate those with the doctrines and then transfer the guilt to the ideology.  It's dishonest argument, flawed and duplicitous.  That's what I criticize.  Go back and check for yourself and quit lying about it.  If you must hold up individuals, then criticize the actions of the individual, not the philosophy.  Criticize their actions, not the faith, not the doctrine, not Christianity.

It is clear why atheists do this.  They cannot flaw the doctrines or the philosophy of Christ, so they prowl around like vipers, trying to slink in the side door and strike from the side-line with fake arguments, deceptive rebuttals, duplicitous debate, as described.  You think I'm going to sit here and let them get away with it?  Not on your Nellie.  So buckle up, shape up or ship out, if you can't take the heat in the kitchen.. The truth is you lied, May, and you're lying again now.  As I said, if you cannot write the truth, then write nothing at all and spare us your bile.  That's the only criticism which reflects directly on you, but it still addressed the content as well.

Now you don't like your lies pointed out, so we get another big fat whine.  Please don't criticize me. I don't like it, simper, simper.  Atheists and lefties truly are the limit.  They were never taught fortitude, stoicism, backbone or moral fibre, so collapse in a heap at the mere hint of disagreeable criticism and then turn like vipers launching personal attacks against those who dare criticize. You've faithfully done it here, blaming me.  Blame yourself for writing a piss poor, weak bit of crap, but No, here you are begging for more. I guess as a Satanist, that's your job, so more the fool me.  I must ask myself why I even bothered, knowing that.
.

MayCaesar

@Grafix

Not at all; I criticise Christianity for its inherent properties (i.e. fantasy-based set of axioms, rigidity and lack of sense of humor), and people committing atrocities in the name of Christianity are simply a consequence of those properties. Who are "they"? There are, at least, hundreds millions Atheists on this planet, and you cannot possibly know positions on Christianity of every single one of them.

I cannot attribute the same properties to Ancient Greek philosophers; they had the exact opposite ones. I cannot say they were perfect, and there were many things I disagree with them on (for example, they generally believed that people had to be quite old to be able to understand anything, hence they advocated for a gerontocratic organisation of the society which I personally find absolutely abhorrent) - however, the points which I criticise Christianity and other totalitarian ideologies for do not apply to theirs.

People criticise my views all the time; I am emotionally absolutely immune to that. You are raging in every post you make and trying to project the same feelings on me, but I am actually emotionally completely detached. I am simply saying that you always making it about others' personality, as opposed to their arguments, illustrates one of the properties of Christianity. You do not have to throw a fit over it and support my point even more.

Grafix

@piloteer - You wrote ....

piloteer said:

@Grafix

The philosophy of American idealism does not align with your view of some sort of clarion call that I haven't heard that you feel somehow beckons me to come to the aid of all Christians world wide. We are a nation that allows us the freedom to pursue our own happiness. Because we have that freedom, that means we are free to not have to be called on to come to the aid of others outside of our nation whenever their safety is in danger. We are free to embrace the fact that if they cannot fight for and attain there own freedom of their own accord, then they probably don't deserve freedom to begin with.

 How can I get on with my pursuit of happiness if I'm expected to be "on call" to support others outside our country by financially supporting, or to be expected to be drafted whenever others freedom is "at stake"?  The merits of the philosophy of individualism can easily be demonstrated to be superior to your collectivist ideology. The idea that I must consider any others, let alone Christians before myself is not an American ideal. It is more akin to the ideals of communism and social justice which I do not invest any faith into. Your communist philosophy runs contrary to the true ideals of American individualism.  I'm pretty sure the government of China and North Korea are not Islamic, but that's neither here nor there because the ideals of individualism allot me the freedom to realize it's not my problem if they mistreat Christians. It is the problem of those Christians alone. If we are expected to be called upon to fight for the freedom of others who cannot attain it for themselves, we cannot consider ourselves to be free ourselves. 

I do not owe you or any Christians an apology for the supposed oppression committed by Islam or any other groups for any reason. I do not align myself with any religious groups, I am a representative of myself alone. Your claim that Christianity is a philosophy because it is inspired by other philosophies does not convince me. I do not deny that Christianity, and other religions do possess many of the merits of great philosophical thinkers like Confucius, but that does not render those religions philosophical in and of themselves. 

The philosophy of individualism also espouses the merits of peace. Aligning ourselves with other political, religious, cultural or racial groups is a purposeful alignment with collectivism and needless struggle. Part of accepting the merits of peace is a full understanding that alignment with the struggles of others is an alignment with war. To truly accept peace, we must have a realization of how we can become part of the problem when we capitulate to the "clarion call" of struggle. If you yourself head the call for the struggle of other Christians, that is your choice alone and does not concern me in any manner. I do not align myself with the struggles of others over my own pursuit of happiness, my embrace for individualism, and my acceptance of peaceful resolution.

 Your assertion that I am "anti-God" or "anti-Christian" does not move me or alarm me in any manner because I do not seek the approval of those who claim to be a proper representative of Christian values. The bible says that we all fall short of God's grace, including yourself, so you are in no way in higher standing than I when it comes to God's supposed love and forgiveness. It also means that an assertion by anybody of being a representative of God or Christianity is fallacious because according to the bible we are all representatives of human kind and no one person stands above others in that sense.  

Totally irrelevant to my point, deliberately cleaving to your original erroneous argument, now being pointed out to your for a third time.  What part of this don't you understand?  I wrote ...

It [atheism] supports the attacking of Christianity, too often citing atrocities going back centuries, which it loves to blame Christianity for, although they are all before Christianity existed, yet with no need to go back centuries, it's followers ignore and are silent about atrocities occurring under their very noses to this day - the slaughter and oppression of Christians daily by Islamics, North Korea and the China governments.  The point being made was that I have no respect for such cowardly double-speak and hypocrisy in the philosophy of atheism, touted by its followers, but it seems my point was completely lost on you. 

To avoid the risk of it still going over your head, (although I find that hard to believe and consider you are just making mischief here), I'll spell it out in no uncertain terms.  If atheists choose to criticize Christianity for things it has never done and falsely blame its philosophy for the actions of individuals, many committed way before its time, yet fail to criticize the atrocities of those occurring right under their noses in our day, then they have no credibility, are disingenuous and fake.  It means their arguments are duplicitous and loaded with a distinct bigotry toward Christianity, therefore they cannot be taken seriously. 

I'm not asking you to speak favourably of Christianity, nor to answer some "Clarion call" as you claim.  I'm merely pointing out  the most abject hypocrisy and a deep-seated and malicious bigotry, which goes beyond the realms of reason.  If the constant criticism of Christianity were based on reason, then the reasoning would ALSO  see a great damned more significant and considerably greater reason to find fault with those slaughtering Christians, but atheists don't.  They ignore that.  There are many committing atrocities today, particularly Communist and Islamic nations, but atheists are silent against them. Why?

So what does that mean?  It means their complaints against Christianity have an Agenda, that atheists suffer from a stinking, lousy hypocrisy, with a fettish about Christianity so big that they can't climb over it, so huge, that it disables their logical rationale, so bigoted and duplicitous they can't see the wood for the trees.  That's ALL  I'm saying.  Simply criticizing their double speak, their double standards their hatred and rabid bigotry towards  Christianity.  I don't EXPECT you to come to anyone's aid, or give up your freedoms, or make any sacrifices.  I simply am taking the liberty of telling you that the worldview of atheism is putrid.  Got that?.

ZeusAres42

WHY DO ATHEISTS & LIBERALS WORSHIP THE GRECO-ROMAN PHILOSOPHERS & ISLAM BUT NOT CHRIST?

They Don't.

HowardChance1

they areen that's why@Grafix

HowardChance1

They are men that's why @Grafix @piloteer

piloteer

@HowardChance1

Oooo, I like that. I've never seen you post anything here before, and right out of the gate you're aiming straight for the jugular. I like that. You got spunk kid!  

RadicalCentrist

@Grafix no, I don't worship Greco-Roman philosophers. But I want to address your claim that the crusades were protecting Christians. They were not. The crusaders were so brutal that every non-western source we have on them depicts them as savage brutes. Emicho of Flonheim, the leader of one of the Christian armies, literally besieged a Christian Hungarian city because the crusaders weren't allowed into their markets. The Albigensian crusade is the first traditional example of genocide. The fourth crusade destroyed one of the greatest Christian cities in the world. In no way were the crusades justified. They killed millions. I'd also like to say that the Islamic nations were not brutal, but rather arguably more sophisticated than the Christian ones at the time. I'm not saying that Islam has a stainless record, but Christianity doesn't either, and the crusades are a big stain.

MayCaesar

Crusaders obviously did not defend Christianity, considering how they ravaged many Christian cities along the way. Those were usual wars between power-hungry leaders, using people convinced they were fighting for some higher ideals, as cannon fodder. Wars are very rarely, if ever, about defending some high ideals; almost always they are about stroking leaders' egos.

The claim that Islamic nations were less brutal than Christian ones also does not withstand historical scrutiny; they also warred endlessly between each other over nothing. The difference, however, was that Islamic nations at the time allowed some logic and reason to flow in their societies, causing generations of incredible scientists and philosophers to arise; something that only happened in the Christian world centuries ago. The Islamic world descended back into fundamentalism at the same time, where it largely remains to this day.

At the end of the day, everyone was awful back then; those were dark times.

Grafix

@ZeusAres42 ; -  The ultimate fleeing to the retort of last resort - a flat denial with no argument to support it, no evidence or substantiation to prop it up, so who is going to listen to a bald-faced, flat-out denial with no credibility?  No-one.  This is a debating channel or did that escape your notice?  Flat-out dumb denials are not debating my friend.  P R O V E   your claim by rebutting my allegations against atheists.  You can't.

Grafix

@HowardChance1 - The ultimate fleeing to the retort of last resort - a flat denial with no argument to support it, no evidence or substantiation to prop it up, so who is going to listen to a bald-faced, flat-out denial with no credibility?  No-one.  This is a debating channel or did that escape your notice?  Flat-out dumb denials are not debating my friend.  P R O V E   your claim by rebutting my allegations against atheists.  You can't.

Grafix

@piloteer - LOL!  And so you line up behind the clueless, behind the ultimate fleeing to the resort of last retort - a flat denial with no argument to support it, no evidence or substantiation to prop it up, so who is going to listen to a bald-faced, flat-out denial with no credibility?  No-one.  This is a debating channel or did that escape your notice?  Flat-out dumb denials are not debating my friend.  P R O V E   your claim by rebutting my allegations against atheists.  You can't.

Grafix

@RadicalCentrist - You wrote ....

@Grafix no, I don't worship Greco-Roman philosophers. But I want to address your claim that the crusades were protecting Christians. They were not. The crusaders were so brutal that every non-western source we have on them depicts them as savage brutes. Emicho of Flonheim, the leader of one of the Christian armies, literally besieged a Christian Hungarian city because the crusaders weren't allowed into their markets. The Albigensian crusade is the first traditional example of genocide. The fourth crusade destroyed one of the greatest Christian cities in the world. In no way were the crusades justified. They killed millions. I'd also like to say that the Islamic nations were not brutal, but rather arguably more sophisticated than the Christian ones at the time. I'm not saying that Islam has a stainless record, but Christianity doesn't either, and the crusades are a big stain.

I see.  Contrary to all good common sense, logic and rationale, you expect me to just accept the word of a nobody on the Internet and not research the history of the Crusaders?  LOL!  How and why were they originally formed?  Instead you think I'll sit here like a dumb blob of dubious humanity and accept your even dumber blob of very dubious fake opinion?  Yeah right.  Have you ever lifted your ten digits to your keyboard to actually research what triggered the crusades in the first place?  Of course you haven't, evidenced by the absolute bullcrap you write.

Pilgrims would sojourn to the Holy sites and relics in Jerusalem to pay homage to the Judeo-Christian God and in their great numbers trekking the roads to their destination of worship, the Islamic barbarians would descend upon these poor unarmed people with scimitars flashing, lop off their heads, rob them and disappear.  Subsequently, some gallant Englishmen and European cavalrymen decided they needed protection from these lowly and cowardly Jihadis, who would lie in wait for the pilgrims.  As the numbers of pilgrim swelled, so did the number of innocent deaths, which prompted an increase in the gallant and chivalrous knights who came to their aid.  That's how the Crasaders came by their original names - Knights of the Cross and Knights of the Temple, Knights of St. George, etc. etc. all declaring their mission with a cross emblazoned on their shields and breastplates, but I'm supposed to believe your drivel  !!!

The unbridled hatred by Islamics for everything which represented Christ, His cross, His followers in Christianity (same thing today, still killing 90,000 unarmed innocent Christians per annum), led to Islamic marauders desecrating, robbing and destroying Christian churches, Christian Holy relics, their Holy sites, anything Christian.  As a result the Christian monarchs of Europe and England began to sponsor and fund the Knights of the Holy Cross, the Crusaders.  That grew their numbers sufficient for them to form small fighting forces, and ultimately led to full scale war against the lowly, cowardly, egregious Islamic militants who raged in abject bigotry, staging  uncalled for attacks upon Christians, Christian holy sites and churches, killing thousands of innocent, defenceless and unarmed faithful pilgrims and Christians at large - and you defend this cowardly filth of unprovoked, marauding bigots?  As always, atheism on the wrong side of the law, the wrong side of the moral compass, the wrong side of righteousness, the wrong side of history and the wrong side of the argument.  Grow up.

piloteer

@Grafix

If atheists speak unfavorably of Christianity, it doesn't necessarily render them "disingenuous" or "fake" criticisms if they actually have merit to their claims. It seems that you think that if they do not also criticize Islam, then their claims are automatically "fake"?!?! What if they simply just like to pick on Christianity more so than any other mythology? That doesn't mean they are automatically false claims. Christianity is far more prominent in the country I live in, so it's the most influential among believers of mythology, so it will obviously be the most prominent of atheists eyre. That in no way renders their criticisms "fake", and there is no need for them to have to equally criticize Islam for their arguments to be geniuous. I cannot attest for whatever claims by atheists that you are referring to. It's also worth noting that some prominent atheists do indeed criticize Islam also. Salmon Rushdie was born to a Muslim family, but he later became an atheist and openly criticises Islam for being a totalitarian religion. Richard Dawkins has also been critical of Islamic laws being implemented in countries to disallow the gay community from having rights. I didn't make any claims on this thread that need to be proven either way, especially not to an obvious victim of a severe brain injury such as yourself. As an atheist, I would enjoy watching Christians being robbed and beheaded while they were trying to worship in Jerusalem. Those who cannot defend their freedom or their lives do not deserve either, and I am not a warrior for them.   

Now  ea t        S h i t      and     D i e         

Grafix

@MayCaesar - You wrote ...

Crusaders obviously did not defend Christianity, considering how they ravaged many Christian cities along the way. Those were usual wars between power-hungry leaders, using people convinced they were fighting for some higher ideals, as cannon fodder. Wars are very rarely, if ever, about defending some high ideals; almost always they are about stroking leaders' egos.

This is such inculcated and fake revisionist history, fed to you from the teat of the insidious and global billion-dollar network of the Islamic Ministry of Propaganda.  Please try to be a little informed and aware of who  your dupers are, May.  Below is a video of an animated map, which depicts the spread of Islam during its not so very "Golden Age" - 700 years of sustained conquest, pillaging, rape, slaughter and slavery.  The video only covers 400 years of that era, but it is enough to get the factual picture.  Observe how the map turns to green, the areas conquered by Islam in just 400 years.  These are  F A C T S , not some fake apologist revisionist history, promulgated by the extremely well-funded, billion-dollar, global network of Islamic propaganda.  The budget and skills invested in Islamic propaganda far exceeds anything that Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's German Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany, could have ever dreamt of and Westerners are falling for this dupe daily.  Show me a single account of where the Crusaders took slaves?  Islam built its wealth on slave trading.

The Center For The Study of Political Islam is the leading research Institute on the history of Islam, so take note.  It is authoritative scholarly research, obtained from the oldest manuscripts and documented history available.  This factual history is unsurpassed in scholarship.  (Always use the cc icon to get the sub-text at the bottom of your screen.  That way you miss nothing and remember it much better than by audio alone.)



Then with absolutely nothing to back it up, you expect us to take your word for this truckload of stock-in-trade, bunch of croc and unadulterated baloney ...

The claim that Islamic nations were less brutal than Christian ones also does not withstand historical scrutiny; they also warred endlessly between each other over nothing. The difference, however, was that Islamic nations at the time allowed some logic and reason to flow in their societies, causing generations of incredible scientists and philosophers to arise; something that only happened in the Christian world centuries ago. The Islamic world descended back into fundamentalism at the same time, where it largely remains to this day.

That claim is just so patently false.  Nowhere does historical fact back it up and nowhere can there be found any evidence to support it.  All evidence found in artefacts, inscriptions, stele, relics, parchments, ancient manuals, records and writings, even Islam's own ancient public record  reveals the opposite.  All reveal an ideology which is expansionist in intent and expansionist in nature with a stated methodology of open and outright, unapologetic warfare and subjugation, outright slaughter, outright pillaging, no captives taken, all slaughtered except for those selectively taken into slavery,  the women selected for raping, forced into harems.  Let go of the teat of inculcation, propaganda and brainwashing.  Open your ears, eyes and mind. (Always use the cc icon for sub-text at the bottom of your screen.  That way you miss nothing and remember it much better than by audio alone.)

MayCaesar

@Grafix

Saying that something is propaganda does not challenge the argument in any way; it simply means that you have nothing better to say.

I do not remember disagreeing that the Islamic world at the time (and still is) was highly expansionist. It absolutely does not contradict my points in any way.

Of course Islam is an expansionist and totalitarian ideology, just like Christianity. Which is why the societies can only thrive when the ideological fundamentalism, at least temporarily and partially, is substituted for logic and reason. When you can say that, perhaps, Allah does not exist and not have your head chopped off. When that is not the case, then you get Medieval Europe or modern Islamic World, with no human rights, with extreme poverty everywhere and with endless inter-national and civil wars.

You want me to show you a single account of where the Crusaders took slaves? Mate... Jerusalem was a center of slave trade under the Crusader rule. It is such a well-known and documented fact that I will just quote the wiki on this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe

In the crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, founded in 1099, at most 120,000 Franks ruled over 350,000 Muslims, Jews, and native Eastern Christians.[65] Following the initial invasion and conquest, sometimes accompanied by massacres or expulsions of Jews and Muslims, a peaceable co-existence between followers of the three religions prevailed.[66] The Crusader states inherited many slaves. To this may have been added some Muslims taken as captives of war. The Kingdom's largest city, Acre, had a large slave market; however, the vast majority of Muslims and Jews remained free. The laws of Jerusalem declared that former Muslim slaves, if genuine converts to Christianity, must be freed.[67]
In 1120, the Council of Nablus forbade sexual relations between crusaders and their female Muslim slaves:[68] if a man raped his own slave, he would be castrated, but if he raped someone else's slave, he would be castrated and exiled from the kingdom.[68] But Benjamin Z. Kedar argued that the canons of the Council of Nablus were in force in the 12th century but had fallen out of use by the thirteenth. Marwan Nader questions this and suggests that the canons may not have applied to the whole kingdom at all times.[69]
No Christian, whether Western or Eastern, was permitted by law to be sold into slavery, but this fate was as common for Muslim prisoners of war as it was for Christian prisoners taken by the Muslims.
The 13th-century Assizes of Jerusalem dealt more with fugitive slaves and the punishments ascribed to them, the prohibition of slaves testifying in court, and manumission of slaves, which could be accomplished, for example, through a will, or by conversion to Christianity. Conversion was apparently used as an excuse to escape slavery by Muslims who would then continue to practise Islam; crusader lords often refused to allow them to convert, and Pope Gregory IX, contrary to both the laws of Jerusalem and the canon laws that he himself was partially responsible for compiling, allowed for Muslim slaves to remain enslaved even if they had converted.

Grafix

@MayCaesar - You really take the cake. Oh, so Christianity is equally ACCUSED  with Islam, because it too was expansionist.  That's your argument?  No matter HOW  the expansion was done?  That's your argument?   Right got it.  Christianity went around not peacefully preaching?  Instead, according to you, raping the women it converted? Lopped off the heads it converted? Enslaved its converts? Sold them to finance its next war?  How would that work?  There would be no converts left.  Right.  Got it.   So deeply dishonest are your arguments in how you glibly skip the outrageous Islamic atrocities to all too hastily jump straight back into bashing Christianity.  You vindicate this topic.  You vindicate my other topic that leftism is anti-Christian. It is a religion against a religion, as is atheism, we Christians vindicated every time.

 Look at your very first sentence.  The bare-bummed, naked cheek of you ...

Saying that something is propaganda does not challenge the argument in any way; it simply means that you have nothing better to say.

Nothing to say?  Too scared to watch the videos?  Substantially "something to say" in those.  You accuse me of precisely what you're doing.  Where are your sources?  You think we should heed a nobody on the Internet, rather than historical records?  Yeah right.   Unfortunately, for the proud, egotistical braggart in the nature of the Islamic male culture, it is all in their own records, THEY bragging about their battles and conquests. When a new Sultan came to power he had to impress his people with, guess what?  You guessed it - a new campaign of slaughter against Christians, the bloodier the better.  

548 times in a matter of several centuries they attacked our Classical civilization in Europe.  548 wars which destroyed our churches, burnt our history books, lopped off our heads, raped our women and kept the most beautiful, forcing them into harems, the strongest forced into slavery, traded on the market, to finance their next bloody purge of Christians.  They packed Christians inside their churches, bolted the doors and burnt them down, torching alive those inside then bragged about it.  

Their "expansionism" had nothing to do with preaching peacefully or preaching at all,  it had one goal - R E P L A C E M E N T expansionism.  Replace Christians with Moslems in each nation.  They did not target any other nations in their wars - always only Christian, Hindu or Judaic peoples.  Look at the world today.  They are STILL  doing it.  Too piss weak to openly declare war, now, done by infiltration and Jihad. Islam was NEVER intended to be a religion.  It was always intended to be expansionist conquest for political power.  There is no "Abrahamic" God in their filth.  Islam, joined at the hip with Atheism together are THE BEAST in St. John's Apocalypse.

And what do you write, some pathetic re-run of the revisionist history, the very history they lied to us about.  Sooooooo    D  U  M  B   bbbbbb.   Sheesh.  Atheists are of the same mentality, the same bigotry, same closed mind, same deceitfulness, same duplicity as Islam.  Equal to them.  Equally as dispicable, to be condemned equally, not the Christians and you know it too.

.

Dee

@Grafix

****548 times in a matter of several centuries they attacked our Classical civilization in Europe.

Again your lack of knowledge has you totally at sea on historical matters.

The initial destruction of classical civilization was by “Christians “

In 380 ce , the emperor Theodosius 1 decreed that Christianity was the official religion of the empire outlawing all others which lead to Christian zealots smashing statues , temples , paintings , books in an orgy of effacement that lasted for several centuries.

90 per cent of the literature of antiquity was destroyed in the onslaught , the Christians took the stones of the temples to build there own churches and over-wrote the manuscripts of the philosophers , poets with their scripture.

The loss to literature , philosophy, history and general culture was massive and Christians not being satisfied with this glut of wanton destruction turned on each other as one claimed their version was the “right “ one and all others we’re heresies and aberrations that needed violent suppression.

Again your abysmal ignorance sees you launching into yet another rabid attack on those who question your nonsense 

Grafix

Go away Dee.  I no longer read your posts, because you don't read mine.  Until you debate the  F U L L  content of at least the 2nd video, you will be ignored.  Instead you play the self-appointed oracle standing on your imaginary mound, puffing know-it-all ridiculous decrees on subjects you know nothing about, expecting everyone to bow and scrape, to tug their forelocks just because you said so. Scholarship attacks your nonsense.

Dee

@Grafix

**** Go away Dee.  I no longer read your posts, because you don't read mine. 

I mostly don’t read yours as you type of reams of mostly unrelated nonsense and call all other positions a “satanic “ plot 

 ****Until you debate the  F U L L  content of at least the last video, you will be ignored. 

Ignore away the facts still remain so while you bury your head in the sand 

 ****Instead you play the self-appointed oracle standing on your imaginary mound, puffing know-it-all ridiculous decrees on subjects you know nothing about,

Subjects I know nothing about says you who totally ignores Historical facts 

 ***expecting everyone to bow and scrape, to tug their forelocks just because you said so.

Incorrect it’s not why “ I said so” it’s a matter of Historical fact 

**** Scholarship attacks your nonsense.


Scholarship supports my claim your denial only makes you look even more of a fool than you actually are it’s a matter of Historical fact that Christianity destroyed the classical world .....open a History book you clot 

Grafix

Debate the content of the 2nd video.  It proves you wrong, UNEQUIVOCALLY.  New translations of Islamic historical records have updated the big fat lie Islamic scholarship fed to us all, self-proclaimed hiding their own atrocities.  Well the genie is out of the bottle now.  Go watch, listen and learn and close your blabber mouth until you do.  You are just DEAD WRONG and IGNORANT because you refuse to learn.

Grafix

Debate the content of the 2nd video.  It proves you wrong, UNEQUIVOCALLY.  New translations of Islamic historical records have now revealed the truth and updated the big fat lie Islamic scholarship fed to us all, its self-proclaimed bullcrapola hiding their own atrocities. That's precisely why they burnt down the greatest library of historical record on earth at Alexandria during their putrid self-proclaimed "Golden" Age of blood letting, to destroy the historical truths.  They burnt down all of the Christian libraries of scholarship and records wherever whenever they could.   

Well the genie is out of the bottle now.  Go watch, listen and learn and close your blabber mouth of prattle.  Until you do inform yourself you are just DEAD WRONG and IGNORANT because you refuse to learn.

Dee

@Grafix

Again yet another appeal to authority and this time it’s another nut, you really need to start taking your meds again.....

Inventing "The Other" Islamophobia

Fear And Loathing

The Center for the Study of Political Islam (or simply Political Islam) is an organization founded by Dr. Bill Warner (who's Ph.D. is in Physics and Math — not Politics or Theology). Its research generally uses mathematics to "prove" Islam as evil, though can be heavily misleading in its presentation. Warner claims that President Obama is a Muslim, primarily because he "promotes" Islam.[1]

"Research"

Political Islam heavily supports the "Eurabia" myth, a far-right claim that Muslims will one day take over Europe. To 'prove' it is Warner's magnum opus, "How many times Muslims invaded Europe vs. Europeans invaded Muslim countries?" The purpose of this video, which shows 1400 years worth of battles across a map of Europe, is to imply that Islam (or at least Islam in the Middle East) is fanatically obsessed with invading Europe and always will be. It further serves to pass away the Crusades and Anglo-Frenchcolonial expansion into North Africa as somehow defensive. The main problem any history academic would find with this research is the "for Dummies" level of simplification, missing out completely on instances where Christian European and Muslim nations were allied against other states.

Grafix

Same old, same old.  Fleeing to the lame, to the wretched, to the weak, to the disreputable, to the unscholarly, to the mind-numbing retort of last resort.  Attacking the messenger.  Instead why don't you attack the source, the texts, Islam's very own record and then see how well your fake arguments stand up.  But No.  You just double down spouting more of the fake history.  LOL!  Debate the 2nd video of STFU.

Dee

@Grafix

Your Christian revisionist views don’t not alter Historical facts and your appeal to yet another “ nut” as in Warner is amusing .....

Let’s attempt to fill in the wide gaps in your home schooled  grasp of History .....

Wiki 

Christian persecution of paganism under Theodosius I

Religious Persecution

---

The Persecution of paganism under Theodosius I began in 381, after the first couple of years of his reign as  co-emperor in the eastern part of the Roman Empire. In the 380s, Theodosius I reiterated Constantine's ban on animal sacrifices, prohibited haruspicy on pain of death, pioneered the criminalization of magistrates who did not enforce anti-pagan laws, broke up some pagan associations and destroyed pagan temples.

Between 389 and 391 he issued the "Theodosian decrees," which established a practical ban on paganism;[1]visits to the temples were forbidden, the remaining pagan holidays were abolished, the sacred fire in the Temple of Vesta in the Roman Forum was extinguished as the Vestal Virgins were disbanded, and auspices and witchcraft were deemed punishable offenses. Theodosius refused to restore the Altar of Victory in the Senate House, as requested by pagan Senators.

In 392 he became emperor of the whole empire (the last one to be so). From this moment until the end of his reign in 395, while pagans remained outspoken in their demands for toleration,[2][3]he authorized or participated in the destruction of many temples, holy sites, images and objects of piety throughout the empire[4][5][6][page needed][7][page needed][8]in actions by Christians against major pagan sites.[9]He issued a comprehensive law that prohibited any public pagan ritual,[10]and was particularly oppressive of Manicheans.[11]He is likely to have suppressed the Ancient Olympic Games, whose last record of celebration is 393.[12]

Grafix

More fake history.   Debate Islam's own  texts or STFU.  Debate the 2nd video or STFU.  

Dee

@Grafix

***** You just double down spouting more of the fake history

Thats it , actual Historical fact is now “fake History” and a nut like warner who cannot fill his sitting with listeners is a “real Historian  “Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha 

Dee

@Grafix

***** More fake history.   Debate Islam's own  texts or STFU.  Debate the 2nd video or STFU.  

You sound like the slime ball Trump , read a History book boy 

Dee

@Grafix

***** More fake history.   Debate Islam's own  texts or STFU.  Debate the 2nd video or STFU.  

You sound like the slime ball Trump , read a History book boy 

Grafix

@piloteer - You wrote 

 "N o w      e a t        S h i t      a n d     D i e".   [I see you copied my patent on letter spacing.  Lame.  But then you couldn't even do it properly - lazy effort - so I tidied it up for you,  Lame-o]

A nice display of tolerance there.  I thought you lefto, crypto, porno, homo, paedo-loving sycophants were renowned for flying your fake flag of virtue-signalling, claiming the hallowed ground of "tolerance" all for yourselves?  What happened to yours?  Unlike you, I can enjoy the freedom to openly scorn, openly deride, berate and expose  the duplicity of Atheism and Islam, their oppression, aggression and hostility towards Christianity, while pretending nothing.  No need to.  I make no apology for my sentiments, able to openly admit to them, because the truth about these civilizations speaks for itself.  Free yourself from your chains and 'fess up.  It's much more fun hurling the truth in a 's face than it is being condemned to defending lies.  That's hard work.  The truth frees us and always prevails.  Try it.  Your lame argument is this ....

If atheists speak unfavorably of Christianity, it doesn't necessarily render them "disingenuous" or "fake" criticisms if they actually have merit to their claims.

Agree with that 100%.  Of course the key phrase being "if they actually have merit to their claims",  but then you go right off the rails with this ...

 ....you think that if they do not also criticize Islam, then their claims are automatically "fake"?!?! What if they simply just like to pick on Christianity more so than any other mythology? That doesn't mean they are automatically false claims.

Not quite.  My criticism is far worse than mocking atheists for their unbalanced fettish "to pick on Christianity more so than any other mythology", which they are renowned for doing.  My criticism is that whenever one attempts to expose the atrocities of Islam or the Greco-Roman civilizations and discuss those, atheists refuse point blank to acknowledge them, worse, refuse to even discuss them.  Even if they stopped there, that might be half  tolerable, but they don't.  They swing in, all guns blazing, take over the conversation with a truckload of "whataboutisms" against Christianity and derail the discussion, completely ignoring the fact that the discussion is not even about Christianity at all and proceed to download a pile of horseshite upon the heads of we Christians.  

It is blatant opportunism, using the topic as fertile ground to openly bash Christianity, while refusing to discuss the subject in tow, the atrocities of the other two.  T H A T    I S     O P E N,    U N A D U L T E R A T E D   
B I G O T R Y ,  unashamed open hostility, intolerance and aggression towards Christianity.  The hijacking of the topic is disingenuous enough, but to use it as a vehicle to get their rocks off against Christianity and peddle a trainload of false abominations against Christianity is more than disingenuous, it is unbridled hatred and deception of the worst kind.  Atheism takes  EVERY  opportunity to do that.

Atheism is in bed with Islam, not because its Think Tanks consider Islam is a meritorious cause.  That's got nothing to do with it.  It's merely because Islam has persecuted and slain billions of Christians over the centuries, 90,000 per annum is the latest statistic and atheists applaud that, secretly cheering them on.  These sentiments are the most base and insidious instincts of all and must be exposed and condemned.  Now let's return the discussion to the atrocities of Islam, where this page is at right now.  Defend your loathsome depravity by rebutting the content in the 2nd video, if you can.  I remind you that all of that content has been obtained from new and recent translations of Islamic texts  from Islam's own  official records.  You couldn't get greater authenticity than that, so don't waste words on shooting the messenger, in league with Dee's dumb attempt to do so.
.

TGMasterX

The reason Atheists worship the Greco-Roman philosophers is because they changed the world of modern thinking and technology. Christians also, if you don't believe what they believe, rub you going to hell in your face. When people ask for evidence of their belief, many hardcore Christians use a historical book filled with myths as 'proof.'
Just to point out: I do not hold any hate for religion, just a misunderstanding of why they believe what they believe.

Dee

@Grafix

***** You couldn't get greater authenticity than that, so don't waste words on shooting the messenger, in league with Dee's dumb attempt to do so.
.

“Shooting the messenger” as in Bill Warner a man banned from several venues in the U S for his hate speech and who cannot fill his sitting with followers when giving one of his hate speeches.

You hate actual History I get that as you also thought a man in a furry costume was a “demon” .....nuff said 

Grafix

@TGMasterX - Well, you may claim you hold no hatred toward religion, but you have created your own religion, from all appearances, in denying the truth and defending the lie.  That's a religion in and of itself, just as atheism does likewise.  Why don't you give credit where it's due?  Christianity civilized nations with its Judeo-Christian ethos. The Churches had great scholars in the sciences, maths, philosophy, literature, history, arts, agronomy, music, linguistics, physics and astrophysics, etc.  These scholars are renowned, their works housed in libraries in Christian Syria and Christian Alexandria, before Islam destroyed both places.  We know but half of it.

Less educated Christians do not know how to defend their faith in the face of schooled arguments, carefully crafted by the billion-dollar budgets of atheism and Islam funding a veritable global Ministry of Propaganda.  However, educated Christians are fully aware of this propaganda, are well researched in the truths of our history and refuse to buy into its revisionism.  Instead they diligently look at facts and expose the propaganda, that you have become a victim of, or possibly even a tutored messenger for.  Either one, your faked "tolerance" is exposed because your claims are not factual, which begs the question - Why have you readily accepted one version of our history, without researching the facts?  That smacks immediately of wilful cognitive dissonance - confirmation bias - which means you are wilfully only accepting information which feeds into your bias. That  translates to bigotry.  This is the nature of atheism.  Below are just some of the historical facts agreed by scholars and the key facts which Christians rely upon, all from sources hostile to Christianity ...

Historians look to the Biblical texts with great respect for its historical accuracy on events, from wars to famines, to conquests of civilizations, the movement of peoples, chronology of rulers, place names, kingdom names, historical leaders, trades, routes, borders and governments, occupations, cultures, dialects, maps, customs and a faithful record of origins of ancient tribes and societies.  That is the stated position of scholarship.  As to their acceptance of the divinity of the text's primary subject, there is no requirement for historians to express any opinion on that at all and no-one expects that they should.
.
Christians accept the historical facts  simply as they stand, but unlike non-Christians, also accept them as evidence  of their Christian God by also accepting that the Biblical record is the explanation behind  those facts.  Between the two there is no disagreement. The facts on the public record, not disputed by Scholars or historians and which are outside of the Biblical texts are listed below. (All from sources hostile to Christianity)

1.  Christ is a well-documented and famous historical figure, who was born sometime between 1 AD and 2 AD in Bethlehem; that His birth was hailed by many as that of the Messiah. His parents were Mary and Joseph both of the House of David, (meaning descendants of or relatives of King David).  No-one had surnames in those days, the parental House merely recorded.  (The Herodian Record & Register of the Protectorate.)

2.  Christ was a preacher and claimed to be the Son of God. (Sourced from ancient scrolls, inscriptions, Jewish Antiquities, letters to Rome from Pilate and recorded in Pilate's Acts - Acta Pilati)
.
3.  Christ had twelve disciples who followed Him. (Revealed in the same records noted in Item 2).

4.  Christ was outspoken against the Jewish leaders in the synagogues, condemning them for hypocrisy and false teachings.  (Jewish Antiquities and Acta Pilati).

5.  There was enmity between the Jewish High Priests, (The Sanhedrin) and Christ for this reason.  Pilate expressed concerns about civil unrest, given the size of the crowds that Christ's sermons drew and His growing following.  (In Pilate's letters to the Emperor, Tiberius, in Acta Pilati and also recorded by historians,Tacitus and Josephus Flavius). 

6.  The Jewish Sanhedrin, (the High Priests of the Jewish governing Council), did not accept Christ was who He claimed to be, i.e., the Messiah,  (Jewish Antiquities record and Pilate's letters to Rome.).

7.  Due to the rising numbers in Christ's following, the conversions of Jews to Christianity, the fact that Christ claimed to be the Son of God, the Messiah and the King of the Jews, the Sanhedrin considered He was a threat to them, a divisive figure, a threat to their position of authority and to the Jewish Council's authority, including a threat to Judaism itself.  They sought to have him condemned by Pilate.  (Recorded by Pilate - Acta Pilati.)

8. The circumstances surrounding the arrest of Christ, Pilate's statements that Christ was innocent, was aware of the miracles Christ had performed, including the letter sent to Pilate written by his wife and delivered to him, urging he have nothing to do with the trial of Christ, occasioned Pilate to publicly "wash his hands of the matter" and turn the decision over to the shouting, militant crowd. Pilot feared that if he did not there would be an uprising or a public revolt.  (Acta Pilati, Jewish Antiquities, letters to Rome written by Pilate, Josephus and Tacitus).

9.  Joseph of Aramathea, recorded as "a devout man with an official status", approached Pilate to take possession of the body of Christ, to remove it from the crucifix and lay it to rest in a tomb which was among several that his family had purchased and owned.  Pilate gave his consent to that. (Protectorate's public record, Jewish Antiquities).

10.  Pilate in his Acts of Pilate, (Acta Pilati),  together with the writings of the ancient historians, Tacitus and Josephus Flavius, all attest that miracles were attributed to Christ.  Their records attest to the empty tomb, as well. The testimony of the Soldiers who guarded the tomb, reveals they did not roll back the stone, while reporting the tomb to be empty, the body no longer there.  Their testimony states the Sanhedrin bribed them to go out in public and claim that Christ's followers had stolen the body, whilst they were asleep.  (Protectorate's public record and Acta Pilati) 

11.  Various historians, modern and old, have written long dissertations concerning these facts and what to make of them, analysing and researching all of the evidence in detail.  The most salient conclusion which is relevant here, is that scholars and historians agree, if the Roman soldiers were asleep when the body was supposedly stolen, then they could not know who stole it, nor even if it was in fact stolen.  The Jewish record of the testimony of the soldiers does not admit to the bribery, but it does admit that the soldiers reported to them what they had seen, including the risen Christ.  The soldiers' testimony alone reveals they were bribed.
  
12.  The soldiers' testimony also records that some women came with spices to the tomb to anoint and embalm the body, which is when the soldiers discovered the tomb was empty and is when they saw that the stone was rolled back, but they say not by them.  They do not say who rolled it back.  Historians agree this suggests that they did not know who rolled it back.  (The Biblical text states that an Angel of the Lord rolled it back when he appeared to Mary Magdalene, one of the several women, and told her "He is not here.  He has risen".).

13.  Reports that the sun was blacked out and there was an earthquake at the very second Christ exhaled his last breath.  The earliest report comes from Thallus, a Roman historian, hostile to Christianity.  He wrote:
“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down." (Quoted by Julius Africanus in his Chronography, 18:1 and dated 52 AD, the only surviving record of Thallus' writings.)  The great library of Alexandria was destroyed, razed to the ground by Islamic armies during the Golden Age of Islam.  The most authoritative writings by ancient historians, attesting to Christ's life history and ministry, including the events surrounding his death, were held there. 

14.  Phlegon the ancient Roman historian is quoted by Origen (an early theologian and scholar, born in Alexandria).   Origen wrote: “Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events . . . but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 14). 

15.  Phlegon observed that the Roman pagans did not ascribe inexplicable events surrounding Christ to any attributes of divinity, including the following event:  “And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appeared and was crucified, and the great earthquake which then took place … ” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 33).

16.  Origen again quotes Phlegon:  “Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 59).

17.   Pliny the Younger, (61-113AD) in a letter to the Roman emperor Trajan, describes the legacy of Christ and the birth of Christianity as follows:

“They [the Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food — but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

From this last passage, it is obvious that Christs teachings of the Ten Commandments were the over-riding influence.  On your remarks about slavery and rape - Genesis prohibits sexual intercourse outside of marriage.  It records the very first institution of Marriage and how God sanctified the gift of copulation and creation IN  marriage when He joined Adam and Eve as man and wife, instructing them  ... "Let no man put asunder what God hath joined together".  Sexual intercourse outside of marriage is verily condemned throughout the Biblical texts, defined as, "fornication".  It is ridiculous to pretend it's not - condemned in over a thousands references and obviously includes rape.  Slavery, rape and subjugation by one against another are all condemned by the Commandment, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

TGMasterX

@Grafix None of what you just said is substantial scientific proof. All stories told by people, then changed and altered to make God seem a better person. I was not questioning Jesus' existence, there might well have been a figure called Jesus in the past, but the miracles and the claims Jesus made are untrue. There is no evidence of Gods existence, now or anytime. One of the most controversial subjects in history, although the answer is so apparent. The reason God is such a controversial topic is that people have faith. People have traditions, and when their young, malleable minds are taught to believe in God, most of the time, they will not let go of that belief for their entire life. We twist young minds into believing something that isn't true. God does not exist. Despite many entertaining stories, the general scientific consensus is that the Tooth Fairy does not exist. Why does God seem any more plausible? With absolutely zero scientific proof, numerous logical contradictions and inbuilt implausibility, it seems very unlikely. If that's not enough, also consider the fact that there are vast amounts of evidence for the Big Bang theory, and very little (if that) for the creationist argument. In our logical minds, we see that God does not exist. Atheism is becoming more and more popular. Everyone has their beliefs and practices, I respect that, but the overwhelming empirical perspective is that God does not exist. People of every religion consider God to be a wonderful person. However, if God existed, why would he create diseases, hunger, poverty, natural disasters, and their enemy to the world? It seems unlogical. For instance, in the story of Moses, the Pharoah and Egyptians were treating the Jews with disrespect and abuse. So, one of God's ten plagues was killing the Egyptian's eldest son? Treating the Egyptians with disrespect and doing what the Egyptians were doing to the Jews? It makes no sense. The whole incident sounded like when a child uses 'They started it' as an excuse. Then, in later stories, Moses and Jesus go on and on about why revenge is terrible, and don't retaliate. Hippocrates. 

MayCaesar

@Grafix

That is the point: the expansion was done by pretty much the same means. I actually cannot think of a single cardinal difference between the expansion of Christian and Islam empires. It always involved countless acts of violence.

How does peaceful expansion work? I am genuinely curious. When I lived in Russia, people there claimed that Russia grew to its size through peaceful expansion, but every time I asked how it was possible, they backed down.

Spare the insults; like I said, I do not react to them, and they only make you look like a person with nothing of substance to say.
Why don't you instead comment on the evidence of crusaders' slavery I pointed out? Is admitting that you are wrong the most difficult thing for you? It is okay, you can do it!

Grafix

@TGMasterX -  I am not here and nor did I start this topic to debate the religion of atheism.  I don't care what you choose to believe.  Atheism is of no interest to me whatsoever.  I care only that atheists distort truths and peddle fabrications about Christianity, which fabrications scholarship and the facts repudiate, yet atheism clings to these fabrications, as you have likewise mightily done in the following sentence .....

None of what you just said is substantial scientific proof. All stories told by people, then changed and altered to make God seem a better person. I was not questioning Jesus' existence, there might well have been a figure called Jesus in the past, but the miracles and the claims Jesus made are untrue. 

You are not worth communicating with if you cannot demonstrate you are prepared to extend the courtesy to fellow commenters of at least reading their posts.  It is obvious you did not read mine.  That paragraph reveals readily enough that you are a lazy debater, too lazy to read the arguments of others, only interested in your own argument, which is off-topic here.  If you cannot extend to me the courtesy of reading my posts, then why should I extend to you the courtesy of reading your posts?  If it happens too often, then I do eventually ignore them, as I ignore most of Dee's posts, because she is a lazy debater.

I'm not interested in your opinion on whether or not God exists.  I'm damned certain you, as a bigoted atheist, are not interested in my opinion on that either.  The absence of evidence is not proof of whether or not anything exists, yet that is what you base your unscientific conclusion upon after appealing to science.  LOL!.  In the rigors of science it is NEVER taken as the cue to conclude a negative, EVER.

If you had read the listed scholarly record, you would have come to accept that no science need be involved, because each item references M A T E R I A L evidence on the record.  The only thing scholars needed to do, which they have done, is authenticate and date it.  Done and dusted.  

Please don't yabber on about your atheistic looney tunes of whether or not God exists. It's off-topic here.  What is on-topic is, that given that Christ was a recognized prophet and preacher of peace, credited with the wisest philosophy of all - by over 3 billion people - why then can't atheists even discuss the philosophy, without the need for religion or faith to be involved? Simply discuss it's merits as a set of values for any society to live by.  What's gobsmacking about the ignorant attitude of atheism, is that Christ was the author of our Western ethos and Western culture, the very one atheists live in, yet they won't discuss that ethos, instead they just bash the author and his followers, while supporting a culture which slaughters 90,000 Christians per annum.  Some philosophy.

.

Dee

@Grafix

***** as I ignore most of Dee's posts, because she is a lazy debater.

Translation from Grafix  to English .........You don’t like Historical facts as you prefer to think every counter to your nonsense is a Satanic / Commie plot ........

Dee

@Grafix

***** as I ignore most of Dee's posts, because she is a lazy debater.

Translation from Grafix  to English .........You don’t like Historical facts as you prefer to think every counter to your nonsense is a Satanic / Commie plot ........

Grafix

@MayCaesar - You wrote ...

That is the point: the expansion was done by pretty much the same means. I actually cannot think of a single cardinal difference between the expansion of Christian and Islam empires. It always involved countless acts of violence.

Not according to the facts now revealed by the Islamic texts recently translated, which had never been translated before.  Then you ask the dippiest of questions I have ever seen, with this ....

How does peaceful expansion work? I am genuinely curious. 

This cannot be taken as a serious comment, let alone a truthful one.  How do you suppose nearly 3 billion Christians on the face of the globe happened?  Did priests go around lopping off heads, raping the women, forcing them into harems, selling the strongest men, women and children into slavery to obtain their conversions or finance their next atrocity? Don't think so.  You truly do take the cake sometimes with your crap.  Next you write ...

Why don't you instead comment on the evidence of crusaders' slavery I pointed out? Is admitting that you are wrong the most difficult thing for you? It is okay, you can do it!

The reason I don't is for all the reasons I have already stated on this page to you and others, but specifically to Piloteer.  Perhaps if you followed the discussion, I would not have to endlessly repeat what I have already pointed out, more than once.  Here's an excerpt from my response to Piloteer just a few posts up from this one ... (go read all of it) ...

My criticism is that whenever one attempts to expose the atrocities of Islam or the Greco-Roman civilizations and discuss those, atheists refuse point blank to acknowledge them, worse, refuse to even discuss them.  Even if they stopped there, that might be half  tolerable, but they don't.  They swing in, all guns blazing, take over the conversation with a truckload of "whataboutisms" against Christianity and derail the discussion, completely ignoring the fact that the discussion is not even about Christianity at all and proceed to download a pile of horseshite upon the heads of we Christians.
  
It's blatant opportunism, using the topic as fertile ground to openly bash Christianity, while refusing to discuss the subject in tow, the atrocities of the other two. T H A T    I S     O P E N,   U N A D U L T E R A T E D    B I G O T R Y ,  unashamed open hostility, intolerance and aggression towards Christianity.  The hijacking of the topic is disingenuous enough, but to use it as a vehicle to get their rocks off against Christianity and peddle a trainload of false abominations against Christianity is more than disingenuous, it is unbridled hatred and deception of the worst kind.  Atheism takes  EVERY  opportunity to do that.

In other words I refuse to allow you to derail the subject of the discussion, where it is at on this page, as introduced by me.  At this juncture, the discussion is about Islam's atrocities and in you bounce with your "whataboutisms", just as my quote above alleges.  Thanks for the confirmation.  Now debate the content of the 2nd video or STFU.
.

MayCaesar

@Grafix

I care about what history says, not about some particular Islamic texts say.

Yes, that was a part of how Christianity spread: there was even saying, "by sword and fire", describing how Christians converted cities to their ideology. Islam spread in much a similar way.

Your reasons are not supported by historical evidence, nor by basic logic, I am sorry to say.

Me saying something on the subject you dislike does not equal to me derailing the subject. If you do not want your views challenged, then you should not have created this thread on a debate website.
I will not be watching a 44 minute long video on your behalf, sorry.

Dee

@Grafix

***** Now debate the content of the 2nd video or STFU.

The content of your video is by a raving nut called Bill Warner who’s banned from speaking in several places in the U S because of his hate speech .......Anything else?

Dee

@Grafix

***** Now debate the content of the 2nd video or STFU.

The content of your video is by a raving nut called Bill Warner who’s banned from speaking in several places in the U S because of his hate speech .......Anything else?

A "Homeland Security Summit" organised by Republican gubernatorial candidate Mae Beavers to take place at Trevecca Nazarene University in January 2018 was cancelled by the university after the speakers, who included Warner, were described as a "who's who of Islamophobes" by the Council on American–Islamic Relations.[9]

Dee

@Grafix

No rebuttals to  @TGMasterX ‘s replies .....what a surprise 

Grafix

@MayCaesar ;  You pretend you care what history says, but you don't.  If you did, then you would, by now, have already watched the two videos above and debated their content, but you haven't and you won't, although they ARE  the ancient historical record from official Islamic records and texts, recently translated for the first time ever, which information I gave at the outset, so no excuses, May.  I don't insult you personally.  I mock and ridicule your attitudes and opinions, whenever it is deserved.  Don't like my harsh criticisms of your opinions?  Can't stand the heat in the kitchen?  Well, then leave.

Instead of debating these videos, you are running as hard as you can away from them because you know they provide historical evidence atheism repudiates.  You are instead doing your damnedest to steer the conversation back to raining buckets of fake history on the heads of innocent Christians, as is the wont of atheism, the most cowardly of beliefs that ever was.  A complete cop-out of all moral self-discipline.  So weak in substance, it cannot be and has never been regarded as a philosophy, yet it pretends to applaud "intellectual endeavour" and philosophy, but has none of its own - a piss, poor, pathetically empty blank page.  So fake.

Check out the news clip below, illustrating today's history, no different from ancient history, as revealed in the two videos, but will you discuss those or these?  Will you discuss the implications of this slaughter in today's society, its merits, the philosophy behind it, if any, why it is happening and what it means for the future of Western civilization and its purpose?  No you won't, because atheism secretly cheers on this slaughter, such is the depravity of its bigotry.  We know that's why atheism supports and protects Islam, purely to permit the slaughter, turning a blind eye, the reason atheists can't discuss it and lie about all of it. 

So don't come in here with your scumbag wordy half-truths claiming that you " ... care about what history says"  and think you can get away with it, while clearly doing the very opposite - ignoring it.  S O   F A K E.

Grafix

Deleted as a duplicate post.

Grafix

@MayCaesar - As for your so very ignorant "text proofing" quoting an expression for which you are clueless about its origins, namely ....

Yes, that was a part of how Christianity spread: there was even saying, "by sword and fire", describing how Christians converted cities to their ideology

The origin of this expression is from the original biblical text, which quotes Christ Himself, saying that he comes with a "sword of fire" and which becomes apparent His "sword" is His message of condemnation, by His powerful lessons of our moral duty to discern the difference between good and evil, as spoken by Him and His condemnation of sinful conduct with words of fire, meaning condemnation in Hell.  It is also from where we get the expression, "Baptism of Fire", meaning we are dropped in the "deep end" having to learn the hard way, with ignorance at first making a fool out of us, until we understand, understanding being the baptism.

And in a blazing glory of ignorance you wimper in for your defence "a saying".  A mere saying, to justify the lies and concoctions about Christianity and the Crusades, you even prepared to look so very foolish, rather than accept the truth.  This is the face of atheism.  It will sacrifice you all, left looking like idiots for the sake of Satan's iniquitous Agenda and you follow like sheeples, led by rings in your noses.

Grafix

@Dee - Still demonstrating your comprehension skills, I see, Dee.  Go take another look and get it right this time.  I have rebutted the last post by @TGMasterX.

When are you, @MayCaesar, @piloteer, @TGMasterX, @RadicalCentrist going to debate the content of the videos, the moral philosophy, the purpose, the implications and the end-game, the true Agenda of this 1800 year-long campaign of slaughter by Islam, that has never ceased?