A question for Agnostics...

lol yet another mindless post. The guy thinks Julian was Emperor for hundreds of years n stuff. lol lol lol

 

lol yes the silly 'Treaty of Tripoli' claim. So where in the Constitution did they 'ban Christianity'', and where in the Declaration of Independence?

 

Yet another dishonest straw man. If you had any real arguments, you would have to make up **** like this.

 

F.A.Hayek covers that pretty well in his The Fatal Conceit, at least I think so. The short answer is indeed 'be careful what you wish for'.

 

Ban Christianity? In the USA? Where did you get that from?

 

Another straw man. How did you get to "ban Christianity"? Why make that **** up?

 

lol your desperation posts are all you have left now, until your mod God arrives to save your day.

 

ibid

 

What's a Mod God? You claimed I said something about "ban Christianity," which is entirely fiction. I'm asking you why you made it up.

 

True. I was a big supporter of the fight against Christian theocrats 20 years ago or so. Back then they wanted to push their religion on the rest of us, keep homosexuals repressed, forced me to say the Lord's prayer in school etc.

It appears we mostly won that fight. But in its absence we have now seen the rise of the new religion of atheist wokeness that I fear has potential to grow into something worse.

 

God used talk to people, they didn't listen, He did miracles, they forgot, so he had it written down, and people ignore it. It has the best prophets, they have been 100% on the things that come to pass, i.e. Daniel, 400 years before they occurred. For That alone would seem that the Bible is Divinely inspired

 

That doesn't sound to me like an all powerful being who wants to convey information. If an all powerful being wants you to know something, then you know it. Else he isn't all powerful.

Talking, doing miracles, writing books... None of this would be needed by an actual God to make his will known.

 

The "prophecies" are often vague or easy to just self-fulfill. Sometimes people (including the Gospel writers) would just take random verses that were never even positioned as a prophecy, take them completely out of context, and then mention something vaguely similar that happened or was purported to have happened, and claim it was fulfilled prophecy. And, of course, when the prophecies failed completely (like those against Egypt and Tyre), they make up excuses about God changing his mind and withholding his judgement.

 

You fight for neoatheism every day out here. But then that makes sense since you are one.

So youve had this conversation with God then we take it?

FALSE Christianity condemned old practice of human sacrifice/imolation, and that has nothing to do with agnostic, on topic means you have something add with regard to agnostic

 

He's talking about the blood sacrifice of Jesus. Christianity is based on collective guilt for humanity because of what Adam did and collective potential for redemption based on what Jesus did. This whole collectivist concept is part of its main flaw.

 

That was jewish progenitor legal tradition that Ez abolished, which does not mean people were ever educated to that fact.

 

No, it's the book or Romans. So you've never met a Christian who regards Jesus's actions redeeming blood? That his death is their salvation? Thank you for clarifying that you have never talked to a Christian about their beliefs. Speaking of education . . .

 

the romans wrote jewish law?
I didnt get my education off the street.

 

Its one of the issues, yes. Vicarious redemption and inherited blame are two of the biggest ethical problems with Christianity, and so core to the religion that is difficult to form a sect of it without these issues and still be considered Christian.

 

. . . Romans is a book of the Bible . . . in the New Testament . . . written by Paul . . . not by the romans. It was an epistle BY Paul TO roman Christians. How is this the first time you've heard about it?

 

I will say that there definitely are some exceptions who have a different interpretation, but this is definitely the main one, and the one explicitly stated in Paul's writings. Not that I have a problem with Christians who reject Paul. They are some of my favorite Christians.

 

you posted a disjunction, book or romans, I chose romans.

 

When a persecuted group gains some status, they are usually quite vigorous in their defense of that new status.

I would guess that is what you are seeing from atheists.

Having seen this sort of thing before, they will settle down, if the prejudicial behavior stops, and they start to feel secure.

It is wildly unlikely it will get substantively worse. Noisier could happen, but these aren't the kind that try to overthrow the government...

 

Actually, it was prophesied or the end times.. it is called "The Great Falling Away" .

 

What do you and others have against Paul?