Does religion belong in politics

[Stattick]

I think there are records of his existence from the roman empire, the Vatican has them in the archives it's been authenticated, it makes no detailed mention in the bureaucratic papers, no more than an execution report of a provincial rebel.
Basicly it's something like "Jesus of Nazareth, carpenter, Son of Joesph of Nazareth, Carpenter, executed for treason and sedition against the empire. Executed on orders of Pontus Pilate, governor of Judea. At request of Judean Priests."
Some monk saved it during a 6th century fire.


also addressing the question, religion belongs as a moral adviser, but should not have a seat at the political table.

No. You're mistaken. There are NO records of the time period that shows that Jesus existed. If there were records, there wouldn't be a controversy as to whether there was a historical Jesus. If we had a proto-gospel that dated to the right time period, then we might have something. But we've never found the proto-gospel (some don't believe that it exists, but I feel that there's stronger evidence for it than against it), the book that the New Testament books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John of the Bible were based on and cribbed from. The earliest gospel we've found dated to something like 70 AD. The only other evidence were a couple of documents that appear to be forgeries or fakes that date to around the same time period. Everything else dates to much later.

Lack of proof doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist. It just shows that we cannot prove that he existed. Just because the period is filled with itinerant holy men who preached weird stuff and formed little cults around themselves that taught similar stuff as Jesus did, were the products of "virgin births" and were the "son of God", doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't the genuine article, and all those others in that time period that lasted a few hundred years were fakes. But there isn't enough proof there to base a belief in Christianity on the scant historical evidence. At least not for me.

We don't have a single contemporary source that refers to Jesus. We don't have any tax records, birth records, death records, execution records, criminal records, letters, crosses, artifacts with his name on it... we've literally got nothing. Now, Judea was wiped out pretty severely by the Romans because the Jews were revolting against the Roman Empire around 70 AD, so that could be a reason why there's a lack of evidence. It could have been lost or destroyed by the war. But it's hard to believe that not a single artifact remained. Really, it all boils down to what you want to believe. It's a matter of faith. This isn't like Mohammed, where we have incontrovertible evidence of his existence. It's an open question. Maybe one day some archaeologist will make a discovery that proves Jesus actually existed, but until then, we'll never know with any certainty. Some take the books from the Bible to be proof enough, but others, like myself remain skeptical.

[Deamonbane]

That would be a hilarious joke but for the fact that you obviously believe it. There have been plenty of cultures that were egalitarian that we've studied, that had nothing to do whatsoever with Christianity. This concept that it takes Christianity to bring equality to people is hogwash.

Really? Name one that came before Judaism, and before Christianity, please? It is fairly obvious that all the early cultures that involved such things based themselves around the Hebraic law, being that, for that time, it was extremely well put together...

As for the existence of Jesus, we really can't prove it in a way that you people will believe... It is all a matter of faith, as much as it takes to believe the He didn't exist... if I were to tell you to disprove his existence, you would be equally stumped... Disprove the existence of God? Equally useless... all is a matter of faith, my friends, and if you believe one way or another, you have your own reasons for doing so, and who the fuck am I to question them? I would be involved in a fun philosophical debate, but not an argument, as bashing my head against a rock is not very fun, lol...

[Vekseid]

The fact remains that most, if not all civilized notions such as abolishment of slavery, women's rights, fair trials, etc... were started by Christianity... note, please, that not all professing Christians have taken such notions to heart, as can be clearly seen throughout history... I am just saying that they started with Christianity, and Judaism before that...

This is false.

Mesopetamian law in general predates Hebraic law by a millennia and a half - including the concept of women having rights (something that Hebraic law and Christianity actually worked hard to remove, not implement, from the cultures they overcame - this is particularly true amongst the Native American tribes). Traditional Chinese law predates Leviticus by centuries. This is to say nothing of the reforms and philosophies espoused by the Greeks, Romans, Confucians, Taoists, Buddhists, Jainists... which are all contemporaries to Hebraic Law's finalization and far more enlightened.

Buddhism led the way in the abolition movement - Ashoka and Wang Mang abolishing the slave trade a thousand years before Venice did. Iceland still had a great deal of Norse influence when it abolished slavery.

The way Japan left slavery behind is rather interesting - the general trade was prohibited, eventually leaving only Kenin, or house-slaves, who passed their lowly status on to their children, and this was the only form of slavery permitted eventually.

Of course, we know the descendents of these slaves as Samurai.

The Yung-cheung emancipation occurred a century before the British one did, and a half-century before the British one was even proposed. This of course is nothing compared to the fact th

Not that I'd grandstand too much on who originated what ideals. The hyper-racist form of slavery as we know it is entirely the creation of Christians as a result of the Reconquista. The notion of 'blue blood', white skin being pure and good and dark skin being a sign of moral and intellectual failing, requiring that nobles show their untanned skin to prove that they were not 'tainted'...

As for women's rights, the Mithraic-Pauline branch of Christianity that eventually became the Roman Catholic Church was very keen on stomping out such notions wherever it found them. The Gnostics were first, of course, for being so silly as to believe that a woman could preach - they seemed to find this more offensive than calling the Hebrew god a thing of evil. Gnosticism certainly left its influence on the Christian Church even in this regard, but it was not special.

We don't even need to focus on that, however. Plato's 'Republic' is the earliest work specifically advocating full equality between men and women, save for women being relegated to roles not requiring as much strength. The notion of women being outright inferior is generally relegated to agricultural societies. Native Americans treated their women far better than contemporary Christians on arrival, for example, and this was not a pleasant point for European patriarchs to face.

And when the feminist movement made it into full swing in the United States, Susan B. Anthony spoke up for Ernestine Rose and made it very clear that the fight for women's rights was very much a secular movement, and not tied in any way, shape, or form to any religion whatsoever.

[Tamhansen]

This is false.

Mesopetamian law in general predates Hebraic law by a millennia and a half - including the concept of women having rights (something that Hebraic law and Christianity actually worked hard to remove, not implement, from the cultures they overcame - this is particularly true amongst the Native American tribes). Traditional Chinese law predates Leviticus by centuries. This is to say nothing of the reforms and philosophies espoused by the Greeks, Romans, Confucians, Taoists, Buddhists, Jainists... which are all contemporaries to Hebraic Law's finalization and far more enlightened.

Buddhism led the way in the abolition movement - Ashoka and Wang Mang abolishing the slave trade a thousand years before Venice did. Iceland still had a great deal of Norse influence when it abolished slavery.

We don't even need to focus on that, however. Plato's 'Republic' is the earliest work specifically advocating full equality between men and women, save for women being relegated to roles not requiring as much strength. The notion of women being outright inferior is generally relegated to agricultural societies. Native Americans treated their women far better than contemporary Christians on arrival, for example, and this was not a pleasant point for European patriarchs to face.

also pre christian Celtic and Norse traditions held women in high regard. For example in Norse culture, the house and land often belonged to the woman, and her husband was a guest in her house. Women could divorce men without a proper reason, and were part of political life. That is until Christianity came along.

Even throughout the middle ages the Gaelic cultures were egalitarian, as proven by the Basque in northern Spain which were the only truly Cognastic culture.

[Valerian]

Overall, you'd be better off as a woman in ancient, polytheistic Egypt than as a woman in, for instance, Victorian, Christian England.

Ancient Egyptian women could marry whoever they pleased (except for royal women, who had to worry about bloodlines).  Women, married or otherwise, retained legal ownership and control of their property.  Either spouse could initiate a divorce, for any reason, and property divisions were generally even.  Divorced or widowed women usually kept custody of their children.  Women had the right to will their money and property away as they chose.  They could enter into business contracts and make investments.

Women in Victorian England were considered to be in the custody of their fathers, brothers, or other male relatives.  Once they married, they belonged to their husbands.  With a few exceptions in the upper classes, all of a woman's property became her husband's to do with as he pleased the moment they were married, and she had no legal right to protest his decisions.  Technically, he even owned her clothes and other personal items.  Obtaining a divorce was easy for a man, virtually impossible for a woman.  If she did manage it, she would probably be reduced to abject poverty, since she had no legal claim to any assets of the marriage and there were only a few (very low-paying) jobs that women were permitted to have.  A divorced woman almost never had custody of her children, or even visitation rights.  Even a widow was generally expected to let her other male relatives step in as far as the raising of her children, and few widows were allowed to handle their husband's estates themselves.

[Deamonbane]

Mesopotamic cultures also included the sacrifice of small children, burning, and eating of the flesh, as well as the sacrifice of virgins to their gods... where few, the very few women that were in the high class were offered equality... Slavery was also a very avid practice among them.

As for the Chinese... well, Let us just say that their concept of slavery is very, very loose, where a person is forced to work for house and board under horrible conditions, with very little rest, and little pay... very similar to how non-slaves were treated in places like Britain, and the USA during the industrial era... just not nice....

Also, ideas of racism are extremely unChristian, and started either way, way before, or came up with the concept of Evolution... The Stronger Race, which was taken to heart by Hitler...

The Nordic culture is one that I agree was very pure in spirit... but that was because they weren't exactly a civilization to begin with, or else you might call each and every tribe in early North America its own civilization... the small tribes were good, but once they grew, like, for example, the Aztecs, then shit just went out the window. Once rulers were implemented in Scandinavia under the Catholic Church, bad stuff began happening.

Also, I would appreciate if you didn't associate Christianity with those that claim profession, but never follow it's teachings... lest athiestys all be judged among their more famous peers, like, say, Hitler, Stalin, the various Communist rulers in modern Africa... There are excesses everywhere, and I am sure that if everyone adopted the 'love thy neighbor' policy, wars would start over just what the term 'neighbor' means... Mankind is by nature very warring, violent, greedy, and selfish, and no matter what system you put in place, there will always be those that find a way to circumvent it, or use it to their own ends... Civilization that claim to follow Biblical teaching should also not be held in very high regard... they are poor, if dominant, examples... however, every other major system, once reaching its peak, began to decline...

Read the Bible,  and you will see all these concepts written here... slavery was allowed in the Hebraic law, but the random taking of slaves was not... only when you owed a man, could you be taken as his servant, and even then, in seven years, you were set free. Not to mention that you were severely punished if you even so much as mistreated your slaves... In the Early Christian days, slave owners that were converted set all of their slaves free, although many of the freed men and women wereknown to remain with their former masters. Women as held as equal to the men in the household, men and women of all races mingling in harmony. Paul went on and on about all this in his writings. There were even female bishops at the time... until it got institutionalized by the Catholic Church, and, once again, grew so far as to get certain men thinking that they should stifle everything.

Of course, the first technical republic was Palestine under the Hebrews, where the whole country was divided into what could be termed as states, and leaders were elected from among the people... Women in this society were also held in very high regard, and the laws were enforced by these called 'judges'... But, as you can see if you read it, excesses happened a lot, as they do everywhere...

[Grakor]

First of all, I don't think you get to ask to be proven wrong, and the moment you do by several people, wheel back and essentially say "Well, those guys don't count, because they did these other unrelated bad things." That seems irrelevant to me. However, since you want to bring the Bible into this...

Read the Bible,  and you will see all these concepts written here... slavery was allowed in the Hebraic law, but the random taking of slaves was not... only when you owed a man, could you be taken as his servant, and even then, in seven years, you were set free. Not to mention that you were severely punished if you even so much as mistreated your slaves... In the Early Christian days, slave owners that were converted set all of their slaves free, although many of the freed men and women wereknown to remain with their former masters. Women as held as equal to the men in the household, men and women of all races mingling in harmony. Paul went on and on about all this in his writings. There were even female bishops at the time... until it got institutionalized by the Catholic Church, and, once again, grew so far as to get certain men thinking that they should stifle everything.

Let's first start with slavery, which you're only half-right on. What you're saying is correct...so long as the slaves in question were Hebrew and male. These laws did not apply to non-Hebrew slaves, who could be treated much, much worse. Leviticus 25:44-46 states that slaves purchased from other nations could be kept for life. Exodus 21:20-21 states that it's perfectly fine to beat a slave to death, so long as the death is not immediate and takes a day or two to set in.

For women, Corinthians 14:34-35 essentially states that women should never speak up in church because it'd be shameful for them to do so, and should only speak to their husbands about it after the fact. Keep in mind, this one is in the New Testament.

So, I would recommend that we not bring the Bible into this like it's a shining example of morality on these cases. Because that'll just work against you.

[Tamhansen]

hmm

Mesopotamic cultures also included the sacrifice of small children, burning, and eating of the flesh, as well as the sacrifice of virgins to their gods... where few, the very few women that were in the high class were offered equality... Slavery was also a very avid practice among them.

Yes, and they were twenty feet tall, had huge wings and ejaculated skittles. Mesopotamic culture is very broad however the laws of Hamurabi and Nebuchadnezar allowed slavery yes, but they also gave their slaves rights. The sacrificing of little children has no evidence outside the bible, which in itself is a work of pure fiction, without a single shred of cultural collaboration. Sacrifice of Virgins, yes this happened, but these were both male and female virgins, so again equality.

As for the Chinese... well, Let us just say that their concept of slavery is very, very loose, where a person is forced to work for house and board under horrible conditions, with very little rest, and little pay... very similar to how non-slaves were treated in places like Britain, and the USA during the industrial era... just not nice....

Yes because this is very different from Christian njations like South Africa, Romania, or say any country in South America were people are forced to work for little to no pay, live in shanties on garbage belts and run the risk of getting shot by the police just for failing to see how good they're being treated. Yes Christianity is definitely the answer there.

Also, ideas of racism are extremely unChristian, and started either way, way before, or came up with the concept of Evolution... The Stronger Race, which was taken to heart by Hitler...

Ah yes, for it was not in fact the catholic church that served the In the bulls Dum diversas (1452) and Romanus Pontifex (1455) declaring natives of the new world to be rightfully taken as slaves as they were not fully human, and had no souls.

The Nordic culture is one that I agree was very pure in spirit... but that was because they weren't exactly a civilization to begin with, or else you might call each and every tribe in early North America its own civilization... the small tribes were good, but once they grew, like, for example, the Aztecs, then shit just went out the window. Once rulers were implemented in Scandinavia under the Catholic Church, bad stuff began happening.

The pre christian norse culture spanned from Russia to Greenland and even into North America. So basically not small tribes, plus you gave your own answer. Once the Christian rulers were installed bad things started to happen. Not that the vikings were saints, but they at least respected their women.

Also, I would appreciate if you didn't associate Christianity with those that claim profession, but never follow it's teachings... lest athiestys all be judged among their more famous peers, like, say, Hitler, Stalin, the various Communist rulers in modern Africa... There are excesses everywhere, and I am sure that if everyone adopted the 'love thy neighbor' policy, wars would start over just what the term 'neighbor' means... Mankind is by nature very warring, violent, greedy, and selfish, and no matter what system you put in place, there will always be those that find a way to circumvent it, or use it to their own ends... Civilization that claim to follow Biblical teaching should also not be held in very high regard... they are poor, if dominant, examples... however, every other major system, once reaching its peak, began to decline...

Hitler was a catholic my friend, not an atheist. In fact he was the founder of a movement called positive Christianity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler. Read Mein Kampf or any of his speech transcripts and see how many times he refers to god and Jesus
Stalin was an atheist because he followed the doctrines of Lenin, yet he also followed many doctrines from the Georgian orthodox church

Read the Bible,  and you will see all these concepts written here... slavery was allowed in the Hebraic law, but the random taking of slaves was not... only when you owed a man, could you be taken as his servant, and even then, in seven years, you were set free. Not to mention that you were severely punished if you even so much as mistreated your slaves... In the Early Christian days, slave owners that were converted set all of their slaves free, although many of the freed men and women wereknown to remain with their former masters. Women as held as equal to the men in the household, men and women of all races mingling in harmony. Paul went on and on about all this in his writings. There were even female bishops at the time... until it got institutionalized by the Catholic Church, and, once again, grew so far as to get certain men thinking that they should stifle everything.

Yes yes, and then there were the good protestant Dutch who ran a intercontinental taxi service for all those african migrant workers going for a better life in the new world. And those very devout Christian ranch owners who employed these young hopeful men and women in their cotton plantations.

Of course, the first technical republic was Palestine under the Hebrews, where the whole country was divided into what could be termed as states, and leaders were elected from among the people... Women in this society were also held in very high regard, and the laws were enforced by these called 'judges'... But, as you can see if you read it, excesses happened a lot, as they do everywhere...

Yes, if by republic you mean Oligarchy, in which only the direct line of the twelve sons of jacob ruled each state. The first 'republic' as you described the construct was actually Ur in mesopotamia. Which was founded around 3800BC which if Hebraic writing is to be believed was 49 years before the earth was created "the Seder Olam Rabbah, claims the earth was created in 3751"
The first relatively democratic governments were the rajani of western India around 600 BC

As for how you interpret the Bible you can do whatever the fuck you want, so long as you make sure to keep that one commandment... Dislike whatever you want, but treat them with respect, and dignity, and respect their point of views... we are not all made in the same mold, and what might be right for one, may be wrong for the other. Civilization is all about us putting aside those differences, and agreeing to live in peace...

respect is earned, not given. If you allow others to live as they please, I will do the same for you. Problem is, many fundamentalist Christians do not. They try to put their morals on other people. and therefor I treat them in kind. There is no freaking way in hell good christians can be hurt by two gay people marrying. So basically these Christians are not respecting others or their PoV. So why should I respect theirs?

As for the bible quote, the appologists can squirm all they want. Leviticus 18:22 is very very clear, fucking Christians just want to cherry pick. "Our book is the word of god, except the really bigoted and retarted parts, no they've obviously been mistranslated. Bullcrock. Either the book is truth, or it's fiction. Pick a side and stick to it

[Vanity Evolved]

Mesopotamic cultures also included the sacrifice of small children, burning, and eating of the flesh, as well as the sacrifice of virgins to their gods... where few, the very few women that were in the high class were offered equality... Slavery was also a very avid practice among them.

Slavery is quite extensively guidelined in both the Old and the New Testament, and the Old Testament has two major instances of human sacrifice being pleasing to God; Job didn't go through with it because 'Lol! J/k, Job, you crazeh', and the other where someone (forget the guy's name) sacrifices his daughter in Gods name. God rewards him by letting him win the battle. This is ignoring the fact that the entirity of the Bible is based on the idea that a human (or demi-god) sacrifice is what saved us all from sin, and is treated as the Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread. You know, the eating of bread 'as if it was flesh' and drinking wine 'as if it was blood' is a popular part of another major faith today... I can't quite put my finger on it...

Also, ideas of racism are extremely unChristian, and started either way, way before, or came up with the concept of Evolution... The Stronger Race, which was taken to heart by Hitler...

Because as we well know, racism didn't exist before Hitler or Darwin. I guess the Roman opinion on the Greeks, or the Spartan view of the Greeks don't count as racism? The treatment of blacks by America, the treatment of blacks and Irish in England, the scripts written by Egyptians on their distaste for 'those whose skin is darkened by the sun'. Damn you, Hitler!

Also, I would appreciate if you didn't associate Christianity with those that claim profession, but never follow it's teachings... lest athiestys all be judged among their more famous peers, like, say, Hitler, Stalin, the various Communist rulers in modern Africa...

This is a personal favourite of mine; keep in mind that Hitler was not, infact, Atheist. He was a rather firm Protestant (if I recall; may have been Catholic) with the backing of the Pope, who was also part of the Hitler Youth. Mao and Stalin may have been Atheist, yet they both developed cultures of worship based around themselves as figures of worship, not to mention that Atheism has no dogma. If you can find a book called 'What Atheists Believe In Total' and point to a quote which advocates that Atheists should be fine with mass murder, I can completely agree with you. Remember, all branches of Christianity derive from a book which teaches the same things - Atheism does not. Lack of belief in a God does not mean you share beliefs with other Atheists (I don't believe in magic, like one of my Atheist friends. I also do not believe reptile aliens came from another planet to infiltrate us and create the world. Remember, Reptilians are Atheists, too.)

Lets also not forget that the Bible also has it's own aryen race. I personally don't know what the distinction entails, but arn't Jews 'God's chosen people'? I assume that title bestows some sort of preference towards them.

Read the Bible,  and you will see all these concepts written here... slavery was allowed in the Hebraic law, but the random taking of slaves was not... only when you owed a man, could you be taken as his servant, and even then, in seven years, you were set free. Not to mention that you were severely punished if you even so much as mistreated your slaves... In the Early Christian days, slave owners that were converted set all of their slaves free, although many of the freed men and women wereknown to remain with their former masters. Women as held as equal to the men in the household, men and women of all races mingling in harmony. Paul went on and on about all this in his writings. There were even female bishops at the time... until it got institutionalized by the Catholic Church, and, once again, grew so far as to get certain men thinking that they should stifle everything.

And in America before abolition, you couldn't take any random old slave. They had to be black, and you had to pay for them. And sometimes, they earnt off their contract, or were set free by their captors after they'd served their usefulness. Doesn't make it right.  Isn't it the Bible that states that you can beat the crap out of your servants just fine, as long as you don't kill them? Why would the Bible be a source of 'Free slaves, this is wrong', when the Bible has multiple references on what practices within slavery pleases God, and how to mark your Jewish slaves? I don't know about the exact situation, but I'm pretty certain that women were not equal to men in the Bible. Isn't that reinforced by the idea that women are the cause of all the suffering in the world, hence labour pains?

[Deamonbane]

First of all, I don't think you get to ask to be proven wrong, and the moment you do by several people, wheel back and essentially say "Well, those guys don't count, because they did these other unrelated bad things." That seems irrelevant to me. However, since you want to bring the Bible into this...

Let's first start with slavery, which you're only half-right on. What you're saying is correct...so long as the slaves in question were Hebrew and male. These laws did not apply to non-Hebrew slaves, who could be treated much, much worse. Leviticus 25:44-46 states that slaves purchased from other nations could be kept for life. Exodus 21:20-21 states that it's perfectly fine to beat a slave to death, so long as the death is not immediate and takes a day or two to set in.

For women, Corinthians 14:34-35 essentially states that women should never speak up in church because it'd be shameful for them to do so, and should only speak to their husbands about it after the fact. Keep in mind, this one is in the New Testament.

So, I would recommend that we not bring the Bible into this like it's a shining example of morality on these cases. Because that'll just work against you.

For starters, you are right. I Corinthians does say that, and find myself having to eat my words about Paul, who was a severe fundamentalist. My apologies for that.

Once again, about Leviticus, you are right: Foreign slaves could be kept for life by Hebrews. But I find nothing in that particular Exodus passage that indicates any such thing, as it is Moses telling the people of Israel that he will speak to the Lord for their forgiveness. I will search in the rest of the book, for you wouldn't have used that passage without knowledge.

The Bible, if you would read the rest of it, is claimed to be, by neutral historians, to be unnervingly accurate, both in timelines, and in places. Of course, you won't believe that, because you don't listen to neutral historians.

Hamurabi, and And Nebuchadnezzar were both very big fans of the Hebrew writings, Hamurabi known to have had a copy of the Terah gilded, and which he based his law off of. As for the Biblical inaccuracy, in structures uncovered in Ur, children's skeletons were found inside the newly constructed walls, well preserved. I don't know about you, but to me that paints a pretty gruesome picture. And, even if they were both female in male sacrifices, that is still pretty... just damn...

I am not saying that it doesn't happen that people are forced to work with little pay, and poor conditions. It happens a lot, everywhere. I am just saying that it is not a new concept, and it is worse than slavery. Not better. And those are not Christian nations, even if they say they are.

The Catholic Church was mess up back then. Let's just leave it at that. They were very, very wrong, and I am embarrassed to be in the same religious classification as them.

Yes, they were small tribes, even if similar in culture.

Those said wonderful people broke just about every law that there is in the Bible, even if they went to church, and sang, very very loudly. Once again, I ask you not to lump us all together in the same mold. Those guys were wrong, and, frankly, I, nor any of my ancestors, have anything to do with that. They were evil, and deserve a lot worse than what they got.

Hitler was as much a Catholic as I am. His views, religious, or otherwise, were based solely around Charles Darwin, and his goons, and if he professed one way or another, it was solely political. His actions speak for themselves.

Yeah... And I guess that you would call the United States a free country too? For those times, Palestine had an extremely advanced political structure, in which even their king later on was selected by popular vote. See that happening anywhere else?

And yes, you are right. But once again, I ask you not to classify all 'Christians' under the same banner. Many, many things have been done in the name of a hundred different things, but none of them have earned the right to be called thus. Jesus said," By their fruits ye shall know them." Balance them, make your call, and classify, case by case. If you put everyone together, then you are no better than a racist, sexist, or any other hypocrite. I am a Christian, and I accept that other believe differently than I do. They have their reasons, and they are all excellent. However, I have not lived through what they have, and by my book, what I believe is what is best. You believe what you believe in, and I will respect you for it. Just don't expect me to agree with you.

[Vanity Evolved]

Really? Name one that came before Judaism, and before Christianity, please? It is fairly obvious that all the early cultures that involved such things based themselves around the Hebraic law, being that, for that time, it was extremely well put together...

As for the existence of Jesus, we really can't prove it in a way that you people will believe... It is all a matter of faith, as much as it takes to believe the He didn't exist... if I were to tell you to disprove his existence, you would be equally stumped... Disprove the existence of God? Equally useless... all is a matter of faith, my friends, and if you believe one way or another, you have your own reasons for doing so, and who the fuck am I to question them? I would be involved in a fun philosophical debate, but not an argument, as bashing my head against a rock is not very fun, lol...

Also remember the burden of proof, here; if I destroyed your computer, and told you it wasn't me, but my pink unicorn friend (who happens to be invisible and psychic), is it your job to believe me until you can prove my pink unicorn friend doesn't exist? No, it's my job to prove to you it wasn't me who broke your computer so I don't have to pay you for a new one.

[Vekseid]

Mesopotamic cultures also included the sacrifice of small children,

You are thinking of Carthage and Phoenicia, the accuracy of such accounts are disputed and completely irrelevant - they are contemporaries of Hebraic Law, not its ancestors.

burning, and eating of the flesh,

I can find no reliable source of such. Like many rival tribes around the world, early Israelites shared many gods with and spread many vicious rumors about their Canaanite neighbors, but this is also completely irrelevant - both cultures vastly postdate their ancestors.

as well as the sacrifice of virgins to their gods...

Like the Hebrews themselves so readily attest to doing in Numbers 31:40

"And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the Lord'S tribute was thirty and two persons."

Persons specifically being women who did not know man.

This is the only firsthand testimony of virgin sacrifice that I know of from any middle eastern culture. You're welcome to point to more of course.

where few, the very few women that were in the high class were offered equality...

Which is better than any woman had under Hebraic Law. Menstruation as a sin? That she has to make an animal offering for? Seriously?

Slavery was also a very avid practice among them.

As it was among the Hebrews, I'm not sure what your point is here.

As for the Chinese... well, Let us just say that their concept of slavery is very, very loose, where a person is forced to work for house and board under horrible conditions, with very little rest, and little pay... very similar to how non-slaves were treated in places like Britain, and the USA during the industrial era... just not nice....

This happened across many cultures as those in power found ways to avoid taxation, eventually creating their own fiefdoms from themselves as they gained more control of the surrounding land. How serfdom actually ended is an interesting topic in its own right.

Also, ideas of racism are extremely unChristian,

The definition of Christian is one who believes that Christ is Savior. Hundreds of thousands journeyed to Iberia, fought, bled, and died to reclaim the peninsula in the name of Christ, over the span of seven centuries. That it led to such a racist attitude is horrific, yes. But casually dismissing seven centuries of three modern nations' history and just tossing it off as 'unChristian' feels like willful ignorance at best.

and started either way, way before, or came up with the concept of Evolution... The Stronger Race, which was taken to heart by Hitler...

If you want to debate evolution, make a new thread with your questions. It is too large a topic for this discussion.

The Nordic culture is one that I agree was very pure in spirit... but that was because they weren't exactly a civilization to begin with,

You have got to be joking.

The Nordic culture founded
- Sweden
- Denmark
- Iceland
- Norway
- The Keivan Rus (which became Russia)
- York (as in the city from which New York takes its name)
- Norse-Gaelic culture which profoundly influenced Scotland
- The Normans, which in 1066 launched a minor invasion that led to a civilization you might have heard of called the British Empire.

In short, Norse influence directly led to the three most powerful nations this planet has ever seen - and when China and India overtake Russia for certain it's not like you're going to argue for their Christian roots. Claiming that they were not a civilization is directly insulting the cultural legacy of nearly every single member of this forum. Heck, Scandinavians make up the majority of E's non-Anglophone population.

or else you might call each and every tribe in early North America its own civilization... the small tribes were good, but once they grew, like, for example, the Aztecs, then shit just went out the window. Once rulers were implemented in Scandinavia under the Catholic Church, bad stuff began happening.

The Aztecs were a water empire (much like China). What happened to Native Americans was a lack of metallurgical discipline and, of course, the whole plague business.

Also, I would appreciate if you didn't associate Christianity with those that claim profession, but never follow it's teachings...

Which teachings? Whose teachings are right?

I have profound respect for the Gnostic movement. Not so much for much else.

lest athiestys all be judged among their more famous peers, like, say, Hitler, Stalin, the various Communist rulers in modern Africa...

Hitler was not an atheist.

And it'd be fair, if you're going to compare atheist to atheist, we should compare theist to theist, and compare you to Timur - the greatest mass-murderer the world has ever known. One might also point out Ghengis Khan's association with Nestorian Christianity.

The real enemy is of course the concept of ideology itself.

There are excesses everywhere, and I am sure that if everyone adopted the 'love thy neighbor' policy, wars would start over just what the term 'neighbor' means... Mankind is by nature very warring, violent, greedy, and selfish,

Hardly. Humans are only this way as a whole when they are driven by desperation, fear, or ignorance.

and no matter what system you put in place, there will always be those that find a way to circumvent it, or use it to their own ends...

Which is why it should be our duty to make sure such people never amass power, and if they do, that it be deprived from them. People such as this are actually quite rare.

Civilization that claim to follow Biblical teaching should also not be held in very high regard... they are poor, if dominant, examples... however, every other major system, once reaching its peak, began to decline...

That's a tautology.

Read the Bible,  and you will see all these concepts written here... slavery was allowed in the Hebraic law, but the random taking of slaves was not...

And the sixteen thousand virgin women mentioned in Numbers above? Oh right, they're not people, they're property to be raped.

only when you owed a man, could you be taken as his servant, and even then, in seven years, you were set free. Not to mention that you were severely punished if you even so much as mistreated your slaves... In the Early Christian days, slave owners that were converted set all of their slaves free, although many of the freed men and women wereknown to remain with their former masters.

This is how indentured servitude often went until the beginning of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the racism that drove it, of course, being itself driven by the Reconquista.

Women as held as equal to the men in the household,

Not under Pauline doctrine. "Women, be subservient to your husbands."

men and women of all races mingling in harmony. Paul went on and on about all this in his writings.

Racism as we know it is, again, a concept invented a thousand years later during the Reconquista. Paul didn't go on about it because he had no concept of it as emerged after the Spanish struggle with the Moor.

There were even female bishops at the time... until it got institutionalized by the Catholic Church, and, once again, grew so far as to get certain men thinking that they should stifle everything.

Find me one confirmed female bishop in ancient Pauline tradition.

The Gnostics did this. But the Gnostics did not preach the same Gospel as you do.

Of course, the first technical republic was Palestine under the Hebrews, where the whole country was divided into what could be termed as states, and leaders were elected from among the people... Women in this society were also held in very high regard, and the laws were enforced by these called 'judges'... But, as you can see if you read it, excesses happened a lot, as they do everywhere...

If a king holds high authority, it's not a republic, no matter how strongly you wish to claim so. Not that pre-6th century records of the then-polytheistic Hebrews is well-known anyway, this just comes off as revisionism. If they were an actual Republic, why the Hasmonean dynasty when they finally achieved independence?

[Vekseid]

The Bible, if you would read the rest of it, is claimed to be, by neutral historians, to be unnervingly accurate, both in timelines, and in places. Of course, you won't believe that, because you don't listen to neutral historians.

Perhaps you should listen to your own advice?

Hamurabi, and And Nebuchadnezzar were both very big fans of the Hebrew writings, Hamurabi known to have had a copy of the Terah gilded, and which he based his law off of.

Hammurabi lived three to four centuries before the Israelites even existed, and nine centuries before they are thought to have begun laying down their law, and a full twelve centuries before it would have resembled anything close to what you read of it.

You badger about us having biased sources and then throw this out?

As for the Biblical inaccuracy, in structures uncovered in Ur, children's skeletons were found inside the newly constructed walls, well preserved. I don't know about you, but to me that paints a pretty gruesome picture. And, even if they were both female in male sacrifices, that is still pretty... just damn...

Source please. Preferably one that would assume it's a sacrifice rather than a mode of burial.

Hitler was as much a Catholic as I am. His views, religious, or otherwise, were based solely around Charles Darwin, and his goons, and if he professed one way or another, it was solely political. His actions speak for themselves.

Find me one quote from Hitler which even mentions Darwin by name.

If we're to believe Table Talk...

Where do we acquire the right to believe that man has not always been what he is now? The study of nature teaches us that, in the animal kingdom just as much as in the vegetable kingdom, variations have occurred. They've occurred within the species, but none of these variations has an importance comparable with that which separates man from the monkey — assuming that this transformation really took place.

...I know a few Christians who have made similar arguments.

Again, if you want to debate evolution itself, please take it to a new thread.

[Vanity Evolved]

Also, please remember that evolution has nothing to do with Atheism. Darwin is not some prophet to Atheists and evolution proves only one thing; evolution. If tomorrow, evolution was overturned completely? This does not influence my lack of belief in a divine entity. It simply influences my the evidence behind evolution. I can't speak for them, but from what I know of the Reptilians, they're an entire Atheist group who believe the exact same thing as Christians; the entire world was made by a superior being who intelligently designed the world without evolution. Evolution =/= Atheism.

[Grakor]

But I find nothing in that particular Exodus passage that indicates any such thing, as it is Moses telling the people of Israel that he will speak to the Lord for their forgiveness. I will search in the rest of the book, for you wouldn't have used that passage without knowledge.

I'll print out the Biblical text as it reads in the Bible I happen to have on hand. It's a New King James Version, granted, but Exodus 21 in general is mostly a collection of laws and guidelines written down after the Ten Commandments were given. The passage I'm referring to:

Exodus 21:20-21 - "And if a man beats his servant or his maidservant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. / "Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his property.

In other words: if you kill the slave outright, it's a crime. If he survives and bleeds out over the course of the next day or two, then it's not. That's a whacky moral lesson, right there.

The Bible, if you would read the rest of it, is claimed to be, by neutral historians, to be unnervingly accurate, both in timelines, and in places. Of course, you won't believe that, because you don't listen to neutral historians.

I find it insulting that you choose to presume I am some form of dogmatic atheist. I can assure you that is not the case. I grew up in a very Christian household. My decision to break away from Christianity was not done lightly, and it was done with research on the history of the religion, an examination of the Bible and its text, and a reflection on both of those with the discoveries of the scientific and historical communities. In the end, I found more evidence against Christianity than I did for.

I suggest taking your own advice and objectively examine both sides of the issue, because I can assure you that there are a number of neutral historians that find many flaws with the Biblical accounts of events. The one I recall most are contradictions to the accounts of the Battle of Jericho. There's more, and there are more Bible passages that I can quote and point out that really make the entire book suspect, but that would require its own thread due to the sheer amount of material involved.

[Tamhansen]

The Bible, if you would read the rest of it, is claimed to be, by neutral historians, to be unnervingly accurate, both in timelines, and in places. Of course, you won't believe that, because you don't listen to neutral historians.

First of all there's no such thing as a neutral historian. Second yes the bible is pretty accurate, it was written in that time. However:

1) The bible Claims adam and eve were the first people They begat Cain and Abel, and so on and so on. By Christian and Jew scholars own calculations the world was created 3751 BC. Well that has been sufficiently debunked

2) Exodus speaks of a great amount of Jewish slaves building a city for Rameses II. Neither that city, nor any signs of a massive jewish slave population have ever been found in Egypt or in any contemporary texts outside the bible

3) The first umpty books of the bible were written by captive jews in Babylon the Pentateuch at least. This could explain why many of those first books contain stories also found in older works. e.g. Noah's ark and the |Gilgamesh Epoch

[Ironwolf85]

*raises hand in the back*

All these bible quotes do depend greatly on translation, and edition, as the King James Verson that appears in many protistant churches has a number of diffrences from the Cathloic Bible, published in french.
oh and the book just says Rameses, never Rameses II, Rameses II is the most well known of egypt's rulers, and thus prior to modern archology, the only Rameses most people knew, he and cleopatra were the only egyptian rulers people could mention by name till Tut was dug up.

Also on the eveloution thing, I adressed this in another post on the athiesim thread, the arguement isn't so much about facts and theories anymore, most people under 30 accept eveloution as fact. The battle has become more of a cross between media sensationisim, and people battling not so much over the facts, but the feelings of it.
this is relevent to the topic because it illustrates a point.

These days we have High and Mighty people on both sides leading the charge. The victorian slang for them was "Goodwives" (basicly the kind of people who tried to get D&D banned.)

The Views: (I intentionally argued both sides to some of the older adults in my hometown, who were veteran's of these E.VS.C. fights, I did a collage paper on this)
To the "creationist" side evolution is an insult to mankind, because to them it places him as a "dirty monkey child" instead of "inheritor of the earth" if you talk to one, you can hear the distain in their voice and arguments. Trying to force them to accept it only meets with distain and fustration because you are not talking about theory, you are talking about a worldview, one I share on a number of points.
Often times if you can find a way to help them reconsile the concept of evolution without removing man's importance in existance from the equasion, they will willingly embrace it.

Oftentimes their opponents advocating evolution, as scientificly sound as their arguments are, remain ignorant that the argument comes not from the text of the bible, but their faith in mankind which they feel is under assault, and in absense of evidence they rely on holy scripture. But the courts are based on law and facts, and therefore the evolutionists have the upper hand because have facts to back themselves up. Throwing scripture and slogans at an american judge just isn't as effective as cold hard facts.'

But their worldview and faith in humanity is never proven, disproven, or reconsiled, leaving the creationists soured on the experience, and bitter towards the courts and schools.
It is here that religion enters politics, they cling all the harder to their scrpture as a shield against a world they feel alienates them, combine that with their zeal. A politican can appeal to that and sway the demographics in his favor, this is is just one way religion can and does leak into the political system.

I believe the alienation is getting worse, this fundamental method of adressing the facts, and not reconsiling the feelings, faiths, and worldviews, is why the religious right has grown more and more vocal, and powerful within the republican party.

[Vanity Evolved]

Also on the eveloution thing, I adressed this in another post on the athiesim thread, the arguement isn't so much about facts and theories anymore, most people under 30 accept eveloution as fact. The battle has become more of a cross between media sensationisim, and people battling not so much over the facts, but the feelings of it.
this is relevent to the topic because it illustrates a point.

These days we have High and Mighty people on both sides leading the charge. The victorian slang for them was "Goodwives" (basicly the kind of people who tried to get D&D banned.)

The Views: (I intentionally argued both sides to some of the older adults in my hometown, who were veteran's of these E.VS.C. fights, I did a collage paper on this)
To the "creationist" side evolution is an insult to mankind, because to them it places him as a "dirty monkey child" instead of "inheritor of the earth" if you talk to one, you can hear the distain in their voice and arguments. Trying to force them to accept it only meets with distain and fustration because you are not talking about theory, you are talking about a worldview, one I share on a number of points.
Often times if you can find a way to help them reconsile the concept of evolution without removing man's importance in existance from the equasion, they will willingly embrace it.

Oftentimes their opponents advocating evolution, as scientificly sound as their arguments are, remain ignorant that the argument comes not from the text of the bible, but their faith in mankind which they feel is under assault, and in absense of evidence they rely on holy scripture. But the courts are based on law and facts, and therefore the evolutionists have the upper hand because have facts to back themselves up. Throwing scripture and slogans at an american judge just isn't as effective as cold hard facts.'

But their worldview and faith in humanity is never proven, disproven, or reconsiled, leaving the creationists soured on the experience, and bitter towards the courts and schools.
It is here that religion enters politics, they cling all the harder to their scrpture as a shield against a world they feel alienates them, combine that with their zeal. A politican can appeal to that and sway the demographics in his favor, this is is just one way religion can and does leak into the political system.

My point isn't whether someone accepts or denies evolution, regardless of it's scientific backing. My point is, a lot of Apologist or fundamentalist Christians will attack evolution, and bring the topic of evolution into any conversation they can against Atheists. The point is, accepting evolution doesn't make you an Atheist. Conversely, being Atheist doesn't mean you accept evolution. For some reason, a lot of people who want to back up their theism feel the best way to do this is to attack evolution, as if it's some Holy Scripture of Darwin that Atheists pray to, or something. If evolution was proven wrong, nothing changes on the front of theism or Atheism. Someone gets a Noble Peace Prize, a metric gold horde of funding and science drives on.

As for the courts? If someone believes that their religious beliefs or a voice in their head should have as much impact in reality as tangable things like evidence, or money? Well... They're bound for a life of disappointment.

[Stattick]

So, um...

What does this conversation have to do with religion belonging in politics?

[Vanity Evolved]

It has strayed a tad. xD I apologize~

[Stattick]

It has strayed a tad. xD I apologize~

I understand. Deamonbane is saying a lot of crazy things that are directly contradicted by neutral historians. It's hard to ignore. But the tangent doesn't have anything to do with the topic of the thread. I understand that a thread's topic can drift, and it's sort of natural to do so, but this is kind of ridiculous. We're arguing history with someone that's almost certainly a Biblical Literalist, and is probably a Young Earth Creationist, based on his dogmatic responses. He's already stated that this is a "matter of faith" for him. We can't reason him out of something he didn't reason himself into. Not that I can understand why someone like him would be on a "sinful" site like E. Nevertheless, I can see this new topic being spun out into a new thread if people really want to argue that badly, but I'm not sure that continuing the argument in this thread is best. This argument is a distraction, akin to Old School Gamer's popping into politics threads to argue conspiracy theories. But that's just my opinion.

[Deamonbane]

I understand. Deamonbane is saying a lot of crazy things that are directly contradicted by neutral historians. It's hard to ignore. But the tangent doesn't have anything to do with the topic of the thread. I understand that a thread's topic can drift, and it's sort of natural to do so, but this is kind of ridiculous. We're arguing history with someone that's almost certainly a Biblical Literalist, and is probably a Young Earth Creationist, based on his dogmatic responses. He's already stated that this is a "matter of faith" for him. We can't reason him out of something he didn't reason himself into. Not that I can understand why someone like him would be on a "sinful" site like E. Nevertheless, I can see this new topic being spun out into a new thread if people really want to argue that badly, but I'm not sure that continuing the argument in this thread is best. This argument is a distraction, akin to Old School Gamer's popping into politics threads to argue conspiracy theories. But that's just my opinion.

First off, E isn't a sinful site... It is fun, and enjoyable... I am most certainly not a Biblical Literalist, nor a Young Earth Creationist, and I am not a very good debater, as I have so avidly demonstrated... and I tend to spout, or in this case, type off before thinking straight, or even getting my facts straight. I can be reasoned with, and I was not being objective when I typed out my posts, and I beg your forgiveness. I don't know if I was the one that steered this thread away from its original topic, being that, once again, I wasn't thinking clearly(not an excuse, just an explanation)...

I have cooled off a bit now, and I realized what I fool I made myself, and I ask you not to see me like this permanently... I am not usually this emotional, or this stupid... I guess I should avoid this forum from now on, before I go off half-cocked again, before I let my less-then-reasonable beliefs go ahead, and make me spout off again...

Once again, I apologize, and do not blame you in the least for seeing me as an idiot, and a loud mouthed, unknowledgeable dumb-ass... I am that sometimes, as this was not the first time this has happened. You would think I would learn from my mistakes, but, I don't apparently... I have been properly put in my place(again), and will not do so again, if I can help it...

[Vekseid]

Those rare moments when we are able to reflect and grow are a major part of this board's purpose.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I think most of us agree that religion on its own is not a positive influence on anyone’s political decision making no more than someone’s cultural, family background or history are.  Governing people requires an objective mindset to look for the greater good above personal gain and personal morality.  What applies for all is not always what applies for one.  Religion will never be removed from politics because politics is a human affair and humans are shaped by their past experiences and upbringing. 

Much of what I see though is not so much religion as manipulation, twisting someone’s belief and faith into a weapon to be used.  A shaming of the faithful into towing the party line which I find reprehensible.  I can think for myself.  If I have my free will from God, then he can watch me use that gift.

[Vanity Evolved]

I think most of us agree that religion on its own is not a positive influence on anyone’s political decision making no more than someone’s cultural, family background or history are.  Governing people requires an objective mindset to look for the greater good above personal gain and personal morality.  What applies for all is not always what applies for one.  Religion will never be removed from politics because politics is a human affair and humans are shaped by their past experiences and upbringing. 

Much of what I see though is not so much religion as manipulation, twisting someone’s belief and faith into a weapon to be used.  A shaming of the faithful into towing the party line which I find reprehensible.  I can think for myself.  If I have my free will from God, then he can watch me use that gift.

The problem with religion, moreso than most mindsets, is it's a very strong thing. It's also very personal. Once you combine that with political power, and the ability to make changes to the public, you can see it doesn't shape up to something good.

Suddenly, you have people who believe (due to their religious beliefs) that homosexuality is a sin, and that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. That abortion is murder, and 'thou shalt not kill', therefore, that's illegal. The Bible Belt is a perfect example of this, where Intelligent Design was underhandedly sneaked in as 'science' within Texas schools, where Christian Creationism is being taught as literal truth to not just the faithful, but to children not of the faith, of other faiths or of no faith. Would you stand for your country or state teaching your children Adam and Eve as Biology?

You're right that there's always going to be a bias. But a secular political system, to me, is a far better system than allowing any form of religion, Christian-Judeo or otherwise, into having a heavy governing opinon on what laws and such should be within any country. However, there -is- proof that this isn't always true (look at the extremes the French government went to, where 'secular' became something more akin to verging on anti-theistic)