Why do people still believe in Jesus and Christianity?

**Bill** · 10-29-2020, 11:33 PM

Originally Posted by dukkha

yep . a couple up the pool are from Syria ( Damascus area near Lebanon) and she from the UAE.
They are the nicest.. and they listen to my Libya ramblings !!! lol

Muslim??

**Bill** · 10-29-2020, 11:42 PM

Originally Posted by Cypress

My theory is that the West's lingering and historic apprehension of Muslims goes back 600 years, and has nothing to do with Arabs of the Near East, Persian Gulf, and North Africa.

It has everything to do with the Europeans being terrified of the Ottoman Turks, and the savage warrior ethos of the central Asian Turkic tribes of the steppes. Ottoman Turk expansion into Europe left a vivid cultural impression in the West's collective consciousness of the militarism and supposed unbounded cruelty of the Turkic-speaking "barbarians" from the central Asian steppes.

I still believe there is a lingering cultural residue in the consciousness of western civilization regarding the cruel Turkic barbarians steppe tribes.

That is prob true to a great extent...... So funny the Russians beat them & Tartars like bitches............

Part of that fear/terror was justified but additionally there was a huge slave(Slav) trade & those Europeans brought a good price in the slave markets..

I don't like the ottomans for this as well as their murdering of Armenians & stealing Christian children to be trained (Janissary) slaves of their wretched rulers-

While they butchered & raped into the west, they were getting a good taste of same via the Mongols that chased their asses west & out of the central asian steeps

**dukkha** · 10-30-2020, 03:42 AM

Originally Posted by Bill

Muslim??

lol..you know I never actually asked...
But she wears a black t shirt over her bathing suit in the pool -so I would assume so

**Cypress** · 10-30-2020, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by Bill

That is prob true to a great extent...... So funny the Russians beat them & Tartars like bitches............

Part of that fear/terror was justified but additionally there was a huge slave(Slav) trade & those Europeans brought a good price in the slave markets..

I don't like the ottomans for this as well as their murdering of Armenians & stealing Christian children to be trained (Janissary) slaves of their wretched rulers-

While they butchered & raped into the west, they were getting a good taste of same via the Mongols that chased their asses west & out of the central asian steeps

Good work. The Slavic wars against the Golden Horde can arguably be seen as the seed of formation of the Russian nation-state and Empire.

I do not think USA citizens were even particularly paranoid or even bothered about Arabs until the 1980s. The centuries long animosity towards Islam actually goes back straight to the nomad tribes of the steppes, in my estimation.

The Ottomans, Seljuks, and other Turkic speaking nomad tribes of the central Asian steppes were late-comers to Islam, and I do not think they were particularly pious or Orthodox Muslims. They mixed Islam in a very syncretic way with their central Asian steppes warrior ethos - ultimately terrifying western Europe by annihilating the Byzantine Empire and marching straight to the gates of Vienna.

**NiftyNiblick** · 10-30-2020, 07:35 AM

I don't give a fat fuck what mythical characters people choose to worship.

When they try to impose their absurd religious views onto the laws of the land, however, that's when we see the huge mistake made by the founders.

We needed freedom FROM, not OF, religion.

Theocracy has always been among the biggest obstacles to a civilized society.

**Doc Dutch** · 10-30-2020, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by NiftyNiblick

I don't give a fat fuck what mythical characters people choose to worship.

When they try to impose their absurd religious views onto the laws of the land, however, that's when we see the huge mistake made by the founders.

We needed freedom FROM, not OF, religion.

Theocracy has always been among the biggest obstacles to a civilized society.

Dude, get a fucking grip. We do have freedom from religion.

Disagreed on the place of theocracy in history. It's a tool. It's like saying chemistry has been among the biggest obstacles to civilized society because it created gunpowder.

**NiftyNiblick** · 10-30-2020, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle

Dude, get a fucking grip. We do have freedom from religion.

Disagreed on the place of theocracy in history. It's a tool. It's like saying chemistry has been among the biggest obstacles to civilized society because it created gunpowder.

Look at the SCOTUS and tell me again that we have freedom from religion.

**Cypress** · 10-30-2020, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by NiftyNiblick

I don't give a fat fuck what mythical characters people choose to worship.

When they try to impose their absurd religious views onto the laws of the land, however, that's when we see the huge mistake made by the founders.

We needed freedom FROM, not OF, religion.

Theocracy has always been among the biggest obstacles to a civilized society.

A pluralistic society, which guarantees freedom of thought and faith, has the best historical record.

Strictly Atheist societies which sought to eliminate religion do not have a good track record.

The USSR was explicitly atheist, they made state atheism official policy, and they attemped to outlaw and repress religious faith. The atheist USSR was one of the most murderous regimes in history, and went to great lengths to imprison and murder hundreds of thousands of priests, bishops, deacons, and religious lay persons

**Doc Dutch** · 10-30-2020, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by NiftyNiblick

Look at the SCOTUS and tell me again that we have freedom from religion.

What religion have you been forced to believe or adhere to?

Kinda blows you support for dialogue and debate on the other thread. LOL
https://aelarsen.files.wordpress.com...es5.jpeg?w=529

**NiftyNiblick** · 10-30-2020, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle

What religion have you been forced to believe or adhere to?

Kinda blows you support for dialogue and debate on the other thread. LOL
https://aelarsen.files.wordpress.com...es5.jpeg?w=529

Opposittion to abortion and LGBT rights is entirely based on inane religious superstition and bigotry.

**Doc Dutch** · 10-30-2020, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by NiftyNiblick

Opposittion to abortion and LGBT rights is entirely based on inane religious superstition and bigotry.

Correct. So? So is fucking in public or abusing children. They have drawn the line, for religion, at homosexuality and abortion. Where do you draw the line?

What laws would you impose on others regardless if they liked it or not?

**NiftyNiblick** · 10-30-2020, 02:27 PM

Not abusing children is not a religious position.
The insane bible calls for child abuse, truth be told. Secular humanism opposed child abuse.

Not fucking in the street is merely a social convention depending on the culture of the times.
Public fucking offends the majority today, but fuck privately as you wish.
Same with taking a dump in public, actually. Is that a religious issue?
And Victorian times frowned on public breast feeding, but it's commonplace now.

Tomorrow could be totally different--even for fucking in the street.

**Doc Dutch** · 10-30-2020, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by NiftyNiblick

Not abusing children is not a religious position.
The insane bible calls for child abuse, truth be told. Secular humanism opposed child abuse.

Not fucking in the street is merely a social convention depending on the culture of the times.
Public fucking offends the majority today, but fuck privately as you wish.
Same with taking a dump in public, actually. Is that a religious issue?
And Victorian times frowned on public breast feeding, but it's commonplace now.

Tomorrow could be totally different--even for fucking in the street.

Where do you draw the line and why? Based on what empirical science?

**NiftyNiblick** · 10-30-2020, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle

Where do you draw the line and why? Based on what empirical science?

The determining sciences in this case are anthropology and sociology. I have only undergraduate familiarity with both, but there are elite minds in academia whose opinions are valued by intelligent people and disputed by Joe Sixpack Trumpanzees who can't write a simple declarative sentence intelligibly. I'm not a populist. I respect knowledge.

**Doc Dutch** · 10-30-2020, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by NiftyNiblick

The determining sciences in this case are anthropology and sociology. I have only undergraduate familiarity with both, but there are elite minds in academia whose opinions are valued by intelligent people and disputed by Joe Sixpack Trumpanzees who can't write a simple declarative sentence intelligibly. I'm not a populist. I respect knowledge.

Great. So where do you draw the line on sexual morality? Based on what logic? Or will you use Justice Stewart's logic?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobe...#Supreme_Court
Justice Potter Stewart's concurrence, stating that the Constitution protected all obscenity except "hard-core pornography". He wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."