Story of Jesus Christ was 'fabricated to pacify the poor', claims Biblical scholar Joseph Atwill

[CelticScholar]

The West has made weakness a rallying cry. Christianity is tolerant and cares for the poor. The liberal tolerance in Europe is totally a product of Christian values. Merkel is a good christian.

They don't tolerate Christianity, though. Almost every European government is explicitly secular.

 

[CelticScholar]

True Christianity creates people like Tolstoy. Who has lofty and admirable goals, but would let you kill his family before he raised a finger to you. Never fight back under any circumstances.

The Christian religion has become secularized and absorbed into our culture. You don't have to believe it consciously. You are a slave to it. Why are western countries which happen to be Christian the most tolerant? They have a Christian cultural basis. Roman Gods gave ZERO fucks about the poor.

Jesus used violence to drive the money changers from the temple. He certainly didn't preach the kind of absolute pacifism and total non-resistance that you claim. "Think not that I am come to bring peace on earth. I came not to bring peace, but a sword"

And there is no such thing as secularized Christianity. You either believe consciously, or you do not believe. "Secularized Christianity" makes about as much as sense as "Christianized Atheism". It's an oxymoron.

 

[Harmonica]

Are you aware of who Nat Turner is? The rebellion he led is an example of how most if not all rebellions would go. Unless you are a gypsy or something the kind of treatment black people endured has no counterpart in Europe. It was simply never possible for an uprising for black people to "earn" their freedom as your people did. Even post slavery, laws were passed prohibiting black people owning firearms.

Now who's dealing in opinions and feelings? If you are aiming at mathematical equality, you're right - nobody in Europe had to endure the exact same torments. But certain enslaved groups of people had to endure some practices that were arguably even more vile than anything blacks had went through. For instance, how many blacks had to meet and kill their own sons and grandsons on the battlefield? There was this thing called "tribute in blood" in the former Ottoman Empire. It was a lawful practice which allowed the reigning Turks to take away their subjects' little children and send them back to their Empire's heartland where they were raised as Turks, after which they were usually returned to their former homelands (often to the same county they originated from) to oppress and if necessary fight their former countrymen and family.

Lol. I can't believe you made me take part in the Oppression Olympics.

And what's with the firearms argument? You're talking as if other historically subjugated groups were allowed to own them.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Probably because your debate skills consist of whichever post has the most likes in whatever thread you're in.

Yeah it has nothing to do with the story of genesis being 100% fake. But let me get into some long winded back and forth with someone using the Old Testament as scientific proof. No thanks, why would I even waste my time with that. It's like debating Noah's ark

 

[Harmonica]

And there is no such thing as secularized Christianity. You either believe consciously, or you do not believe. "Secularized Christianity" makes about as much as sense as "Christianized Atheism". It's an oxymoron.

What he meant is that one can be a Christian psychologically without believing in Christian dogma regarding Genesis, divinity of Jesus etc.

In order to be eligible for this conversation, you need to carefully study the works of certain philosophers and get acquainted with their concepts and terms. Otherwise it's pointless.

 

[WTF2008]

Yeah it hasn't nothing to do with the story of genesis being 100% fake. But let me get into some long winded back and forth with someone using the Old Testament as scientific proof. No thanks, why would I even waste my time with that. It's like debating Noah's ark

What's your rebuttal for genisis and the old testament? Is it fish and frogs?

 

[CelticScholar]

Because while you may not believe in genesis, you believe in something more insidious and dangerous. That weakness is strength. That weakness should be preserved. Fuckin weak ass shit brought down the Roman Empire and fuckin all of Europe. We need Gods of War. Not flags with a pussy on them. Who went down without a fight. The West fuckin despises strength.

The west became the world's original superpower under Christianity.

Stay weak. Malcolm X's dad was a Christian preacher but Malcolm was atheist since birth. He never thought Christianity was true because God aint fuckin white. He despised religion. But he converted to Islam because it allowed him to be strong. You cannot be strong in Christianity. You can in Islam. Also why Hitler was a fan of Islam. It isnt for pussies.

It takes strength to oppose the power of the Roman empire, and to face torture and crucifixion rather than submit to human authority. Strength that I'd wager you do not possess. Could you willingly face what Jesus faced? Answer honestly.

The men who took Jerusalem from the clutches of Islam and who drove the Ottomans from the gates of Vienna and the walls of Malta weren't pussies. You sound like a pussy for calling them pussies from behind the comfort and anonymity of your keyboard

 

[skold]

The bullshit story about a magic zombie Jew who could levitate and ferment water is made up nonsense???

Well no shit, what's terrifying is that there are millions of (supposed) adults who still believe that garbage

 

[CelticScholar]

What he meant is that one can be a Christian psychologically without believing in Christian dogma regarding Genesis, divinity of Jesus etc.

In order to be eligible for this conversation, you need to carefully study the works of certain philosophers and get acquainted with their concepts and terms. Otherwise it's pointless.

You really can't be. “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” and all that. I feel as if you haven't read the Bible at all. Am I correct?

I have studied the works of "certain philosophers". In significant depth. Have you? Seems as if you are merely assuming that there is validity to the concept of "secularized Christianity" because you've watched a few five minute Nietzsche for dummies presentations on youtube.

 

[mrbaapt]

Now who's dealing in opinions and feelings? If you are aiming at mathematical equality, you're right - nobody in Europe had to endure the exact same torments. But certain enslaved groups of people had to endure some practices that were arguably even more vile than anything blacks had went through. For instance, how many blacks had to meet and kill their own sons and grandsons on the battlefield? There was this thing called "tribute in blood" in the former Ottoman Empire. It was a lawful practice which allowed the reigning Turks to take away their subjects' little children and send them back to their Empire's heartland where they were raised as Turks, after which they were usually returned to their former homelands (often to the same county they originated from) to oppress and if necessary fight their former countrymen and family.

Lol. I can't believe you made me take part in the Oppression Olympics.

And what's with the firearms argument? You're talking as if other historically subjugated groups were allowed to own them.

You keep saying blacks didn't earn their freedom. Explain to me how a successful black freedom rebellion would have gone down?

 

[Harmonica]

You really can't be. “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” and all that. I feel as if you haven't read the Bible at all. Am I correct?

I have studied the works of "certain philosophers". In significant depth. Have you? Seems as if you are merely assuming that there is validity to the concept of "secularized Christianity" because you've watched a few five minute Nietzsche for dummies presentations on youtube.

No, you are not correct. I have read the Bible. It's just that your or anyone else's definition of what constitutes a Christian doesn't mean squat to us. We have our own definitions of it, being that we have our own wills that interpret phenomenons. And I have dedicated thousands of hours studying both Classical Literature and Nietzsche, so your last sentence is by far the stupidest.

Move along, we have nothing to discuss.

 

[Neph]

The west became the world's original superpower under Christianity.

Remind me who was that?

You really can't be. “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” and all that. I feel as if you haven't read the Bible at all. Am I correct?

You can take literal or figurative interpretations of the bible and there are how many denominations exactly?

Remember that one guy, I think they call him the Pope? He said that atheists can and do go to heaven and he's only the leader of 1.3 billion Christians. I guess none of them are because you said so.

I have studied the works of "certain philosophers". In significant depth. Have you?

Not even the attempt of a point in this.

 

[CelticScholar]

@Harmonica


“Modern capitalism needs men who cooperate smoothly and in large numbers; who want to consume more and more; and whose tastes are standardized and can be easily influenced and anticipated. It needs men who feel free and independent, not subject to any authority or principle or conscience-- yet willing to be commanded, to do what is expected of them, to fit into the social machine without friction; who can be guided without force, led without leaders, prompted without aim-- except the one to make good, to be on the move, to function, to go ahead.”

― Erich Fromm, The Art of Loving

First you tell us that Christianity hates money, now it's the driving force behind consumerism, which is built upon the love of money.

Get your story straight, man. You are embarrassing yourself.

 

[TheGreatA]

Now who's dealing in opinions and feelings? If you are aiming at mathematical equality, you're right - nobody in Europe had to endure the exact same torments. But certain enslaved groups of people had to endure some practices that were arguably even more vile than anything blacks had went through. For instance, how many blacks had to meet and kill their own sons and grandsons on the battlefield? There was this thing called "tribute in blood" in the former Ottoman Empire. It was a lawful practice which allowed the reigning Turks to take away their subjects' little children and send them back to their Empire's heartland where they were raised as Turks, after which they were usually returned to their former homelands (often to the same county they originated from) to oppress and if necessary fight their former countrymen and family.

Lol. I can't believe you made me take part in the Oppression Olympics.

And what's with the firearms argument? You're talking as if other historically subjugated groups were allowed to own them.

Not to mention that atleast Westerners allowed their slaves/servants to reproduce unlike the Turks/Arabs/Chinese who just cut them and turned them into eunuchs.

There are no remnants of Africans in the Middle East even though millions of African slaves were imported to the Middle East, up until the late 1800's.

It might be a fucked up thing to say but African-Americans should consider themselves fortunate that they ended up on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, rather than into the hands of the Middle Easterners. Christian slavemasters, while brutal, were not genocidal unlike the Islamic ones.

 

[Harmonica]

You keep saying blacks didn't earn their freedom. Explain to me how a successful black freedom rebellion would have gone down?

They have earned their freedom. The problem is that they have earned it through bad means, and the devastating side-effects of it are showing, as I have previously stated.

Successful rebellion in what period of America's history? Before the Emancipation Proclamation or during the Civil Rights movement?

 

[CelticScholar]

No, you are not correct. I have read the Bible. It's just that your or anyone else's definition of what constitutes a Christian doesn't mean squat to us. We have our own definitions of it, being that we have our own wills that interpret phenomenons. And I have dedicated thousands of hours studying both Classical Literature and Nietzsche, so your last sentence is by far the stupidest.

Move along, we have nothing to discuss.

Oh, you have your own definition of Christianity! You don't look at the original source material, and it's own claims, but rather project your own self and your own desires upon the material in order that it conforms to your preconceived notions. Brilliant. You concede, then, that your definitions hold no more validity than mine? Why then did you state:

"In order to be eligible for this conversation, you need to carefully study the works of certain philosophers and get acquainted with their concepts and terms."

If "our own wills interpret phenomenons" and only "our own definitions" matter, then there is no need to study the works of "certain philosophers", since the inane babbling of a child is as valid as the most meticulously formulated philosophical treatise, no?

 

[mrbaapt]

They have earned their freedom. The problem is that they have earned it through bad means, and the devastating side-effects of it are showing, as I have previously stated.

Successful rebellion in what period of America's history? Before the Emancipation Proclamation or during the Civil Rights movement?

At any point before the 20th century.

 

[Harmonica]

Not to mention that atleast Westerners allowed their slaves/servants to reproduce unlike the Turks/Arabs/Chinese who just cut them and turned them into eunuchs.

There are no remnants of Africans in the Middle East even though millions of African slaves were imported to the Middle East, up until the late 1800's.

It might be a fucked up thing to say but African-Americans should consider themselves fortunate that they ended up on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, rather than into the hands of the Middle Easterners. Christian slavemasters, while brutal, were not genocidal unlike the Islamic ones.

If it weren't for whites who enslaved their ancestors, our resident moaners would either not exist or live in some African shithole. Instead they get to live in the most powerful country in the world. Some of the African Americans I have met online are perfectly aware of it but aren't going to voice their sentiments out of fear of being excommunicated by the tribe.

 

[TheGreatA]

If it weren't for whites who enslaved their ancestors, our resident moaners would either not exist or live in some African shithole. Instead they get to live in the most powerful country in the world. Some of the African Americans I have met online are perfectly aware of it but aren't going to voice their sentiments out of fear of being excommunicated by the tribe.

Well, I will say that they exist in spite of a lot of those whites who enslaved them. There were some real bastards involved who would've never given up on the trade, even beyond the point of actually being profitable. However, with the industrial revolution kicking in, and slavery becoming more and more obsolete as an institution, the more humane voices became louder, over those that preferred brutality.

I cannot speak as to what Africa would or wouldn't have been without the slave trade. But I do know that if allowed to choose, personally, I'd choose a Christian slavemaster over an Islamic one. Atleast then, the slave might hope that their children may buy their way to freedom eventually (as many slaves did, even prior to abolition).

The Islamic slavemasters castrated the males, prostituted the women, and castrated any male children that the slaves may have had. There's a genocidal aspect to their slave trade that is surprisingly not being talked about, historically, considering its enormous scale (from Europe, to Africa and Asia). The Ottomans would even abduct and enslave children from the northern areas of Europe, through the help of Tatar raiders.

But it's Africans who should have the biggest gripe against Arabs/Turks. It's just that there's nothing left to remind anyone about the slavery of Africans, there. Nobody left to rebel or outrage over oppression. Those people and their genetic lineages were all "extinguished".

 

[Harmonica]

Oh, you have your own definition of Christianity! You don't look at the original source material, and it's own claims, but rather project your own self and your own desires upon the material in order that it conforms to your preconceived notions. Brilliant. You concede, then, that your definitions hold no more validity than mine? Why then did you state:

"In order to be eligible for this conversation, you need to carefully study the works of certain philosophers and get acquainted with their concepts and terms."

Of course my own definition holds more validity than yours, at least when I myself am concerned. Just like your own definition holds more validity than mine when you yourself are concerned. That's because there is always a will that interprets the world.

As I said, you aren't eligible.