Libheytore
Verified User
Perhaps you identify more with being called a commie. Basically they're the same anti American
identity description.
Would you say that Christianity has been inimical to human progress?
- Thread starter Hume
- Start date
Perhaps you identify more with being called a commie. Basically they're the same anti American
identity description.
You are an idiot.
He hates Christians, the same people who donate to the food bank he takes from.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You are wrong. The three greatest evils are poverty, tyranny and forced servitude. The leftist ideology you advocate brings about the three evils I listed and the three you listed.
Monad Portal
Was it me?
no. its called ironic comedy at the end of a brilliant post., you stupid box of hair.
Monad Portal
Was it me?
that;s not very golden, pony boy.
Monad Portal
Was it me?
except when it promotes an ideology that transcends the tribalism of prior race cults.
Crepitus
Verified User
Nope. You're a tRumpling, you have no grasp of concepts like irony and comedy.
Yakuda
Verified User
Hospitals and the university system owe their existence to Christianity. The big bang theory was proposed by a Catholic priest. Whats sad is Harvard was formed as a seminary now it's a sewer. The devil knew which wells to poison.
The esteemed atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman has what I consider to be a good balance sheet of gains and losses to Western Civilization because of Christianity.
On the positive side, western civilization would be unthinkable with the social ethics, art, music, literature, education, universities, hospitals, orphanages, and scientific endeavors which are a result of the Christian zeitgeist. I would also argue that capitalism and democracy were indirect outgrowths of the Protestant Reformation.
A certain type of intolerance in Western civilization can be blamed on Christianity, on the negative side.
Bart Ehrman
Gains
The Christianization of Europe is the most transformative event of Western Civilization, and arguably the most transformative event of human history. If Christianity had not taken over the Roman world, none of the historical movements that have shaped our world would have happened: What we know of the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Reformation, and arguably the Enlightenment would have been unthinkable. In one way or another, Christianity was the dominant force in all of them, and all of them shaped who we are today.Culture
The history of western philosophy, art, music, literature as we know it would not have occurred.
There never would have been a Descartes or Kant.
There never would have been a Michelangelo, Giotto, or Ruebens.
There never would have been a Mozart, Handel, or Bach. There never would have been a Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dostoyevsky.
Ethics and Social Justice
There was an important and sustained discussion of ethics in the ancient Roman world. But it was simply understood at every level that the strong would and should assert dominance over the weaker.
The word 'service' is one way to describe the basic ideology celebrated by the early Christians. Not all Christians practiced this ideology, but it was the one that was taught, preached, and urged.
The Christians insisted that love of the other was more important than dominance, that it was more important to serve than to be served. It is important to note that the Christian views came out of Judaism.
With the Christianization of the West, there emerged hospitals, orphanages, public funding of welfare and private charities.
These things did not exist in the pagan world. They came into being because of the Christian church.
Most would consider this development a real plus, hugely beneficial to the human race at large and to most of us individually.
Losses
Diversity:The pagan cults tolerated diversity in religious practice, and the sense that varying paths to the divine were acceptable.
Loss of pagan literature:
The Christian monasteries were mostly focusing on copying and preserving Christian religious texts, and an enormous amount of pagan literature and philosophy was lost to posterity.
source credit: Bart Ehrman, PhD, University of North Carolina, 'The Triumph of Christianity', 2024
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
And of course, you are either in total denial or are totally ignorant of how theocratic governments foster poverty, tyranny and forced servitude.
Dullards like you wail on about the threat of "sharia law", yet you have NO problem with evangelical Christian theocracy infiltrating our government to FORCE women who have been raped or victims of incest to bring that pregnancy to term least she be incarcerated.
Nor do you have a problem in IGNORING the horrors imposed on the indigenous people of North and South Americas, Australia, South Africa, Brazil, etc.
And let's not forget what went down with Ireland and England.
So next time get educated before your fingers hit the keys .... less embarrassing for you.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
I would say no to Christianity, or any other religion, having a tremendous impact on human progress. If I had to name the top two, they'd be ownership of private property and the time value of money concept.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Dial it back. Before you start pretending to declare what I know and what I don't, you need to demonstrate that you actually know something. In all your posts on JPP, I can't recall you getting anything correct.
So start there. Demonstrate that you have some knowledge. Start with something small and then you can work up from there.
... and this is where you explain how you believe theocratic governments foster poverty, tyranny and servitude, especially highlighting those republics that foster wealth creation and individual liberty.
The floor is yours. This is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate that you can make a salient point and support it to some degree.
Refresh my memory; on what specifically did I wail?
This is where you explain why the inalienable right of Freedom of Religion is not to be afforded to Evangelical Christians, and why they should not be allowed to hold government jobs.
The full burden to support your indefensible position of legalizing contract killings falls entirely on you. You want contract killing to be an option in society, so that people can make their lives more convenient by hiring a contract killer to eliminate unwanted people and to properly dispose of the bodies. Your position is indefensible which is why you don't even try to defend it. Instead, you whine and complain about those who wish to make contract killing illegal.
What's wrong with you?
By any chance, are you talking about the very same horrors that those indigenous peoples imposed on other indigenous people?
Oooops, I've already forgotten. About what are you blabbering?
Anyway, next time get educated before your fingers hit the keys .... less embarrassing for you.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Are you a Squawkie sock puppet? Because you are using the exact technique/tactic he uses in his responses when he can't logically or factually defend/support his point of view ... and it ALWAYS fails. So, I'll deconstruct you point for point like I do him:
1. You gave a definitive statement in response to Hume, to which I pointed out how factually incorrect you were.
Your statement, your words, your ideas, your viewpoint. Trying to divert the conversation to some fabricated scenario (of which the chronology of the posts does not support) is a-typical of Maga trolls.
2. It's not a "belief", you Maga mook. Here's a homework assignment; look up "The Spanish Inquisition", "American Indian Boarding Schools", "Aboriginal Protection Acts", the "Crusades", Brazils "Indian Protection Service". Once you're up to speed, you should realize the error of your premise.
3. Oh pardon me. I shouldn't assume that since you have consistently echoed teabagger/maga talking points on this site over the years, that you would have been in sync with all the post 9-11 drivel about muslim americans wanting to enforce sharia law in America, that Obama wasn't really an American, etc., etc. So, can you state in your own words here how you were/are AGAINST those concepts? The reading audience awaits.
4. For your education:
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.No one cares (short of physical/sexual abuse of parishioners) about how people worship...but they cannot enforce said beliefs on others that do not worship (if they worship at all). This is why all hell is breaking loose because you have states telling women who have been raped or victims of incest that they have to bring that pregnancy to term BASED ON THE GOVERMENT OFFICIALS PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS THAT CONCEPTION IS THE SAME AS A FULLY DEVELOPED BIRTHED CHILD.
5.
 Contract killing!?!?! Get that crack out of your pipe, junior! You couldn't deal with being factually proven wrong (see #4) so you double down on some religious zealot fantasy as if that validates all you say? Naa-unh junior, you can't get passed the FACT that RELIGION is a major factor in world/domestic problems (see #2 and #4). Grow up, will ya please?6. See #2.
7.
So you're proud of your genuine or willful ignorance about a topic that you run your mouth (or run the keyboard) on? You're not long for a discussion or debate on any subject. Carry on.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You can't read English either?
Nope. You pretended to simply declare that I was mistaken. You couldn't actually show that I was mistaken because
1. I was totally correct
2. You were egregiously mistaken
3. You have no idea what you are talking about
4. You are relegated to regurgitating what your thought-masters order you to believe
5. You aren't able to call booooolsch't when you should
6. You blame everyone but yourself for allowing your political party to bend you over furniture and ream you up the ass.
Fortunately, everything I detailed is accurate, verifiable and documented in many thousands of sworn court affidavits. Also, the empirical evidence is beyond debate.
You are raving incoherently. You get this way whenever you are losing badly.
Take a deep breath, relax, and type slowly. Formulate what is called a "point." Go on, give it a try. Baby steps.
Be careful, you're dealing with the forum's prodigy. He is NEVER wrong. Just ask him...
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
And this is the EXACT BS reply style of "Into The Night" (aka "Squawkie"). I have that maga buffoon on the ignore list. So now you can join him (or knock off the alias).
For the objective, rational reader I link the exchange that reduced "I Be Dumb Ass Mann" (sorry, I couldn't resist!) to the smoke blowing bumpkin that you see: https://www.justplainpolitics.com/t...nimical-to-human-progress.242861/post-6831400
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
My, my, my.
You should get some therapy about that inferiority complex of yours RB. I mean, only YOU on this thread seem to think that my using valid, documented facts and the logic derived from them makes me a "prodigy" (which is a compliment on one level, given my age and all). We kind of learn those skills in junior and senior high school.Let me know when you get the intellectual courage to pick up where your idiot brethren left off.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
"IGNORE" is the go-to option of the desperate coward who is too embarrassed by his repeated losses, and is a trophy for the target thereof.
Thank you for another trophy; I have quite the collection here on JPP.
Monad Portal
Was it me?
I'm so clearly your superior in every sense.