Ok first of all, how revolting is that? The idea that our lives are just trials for the gods? And second, how many opportunities? Why bother doing anything if you can repent anyway? And third, what laws are we supposed to follow with all the contradictions in your religion (for example is divorce ok or not), not to mention the contradicting laws of all the other religions out there?

If I was that guy, I'd prevent that shit, the only reason I wouldn't is if I was not omnipotent. Either your god is cruel or not omnipotent. Maybe both.

He does that alot, with logic,too. And when you nail him on it, he first starts the insults and when that doesn't bother you proceeds to ignore you. But please don't let it distract you, your posts are phenomenal, very interesting to read.

Posts are relative. Don't get me wrong, Tom's are brilliant but then anything looks good when put next to some of the others thrown out in here. :P

Thats ok, I research what I didn't know . That gruesome stuff about crucifiction and breaking legs for example...

welcome to being ordinary human.

This is nothing new nor it is special privilege of christians - they have just managed to be better than many other.

If there ever was some pacifist hippy culture "before civilized world was born", they got overrun for obvious reasons.

That's the right thing to do, if you're really interested. But Soyeong is right, you also have to question the sources (I wish he would do this with his own). There are lot of people out there that claim to be "real scientists" and even have academic merits, but they bend the facts and stretch the interpretation to the limits, just to come to their "proven" conclusion that "debunks" one aspect of Christianity. Some even have been caught forging evidence or outright lying (i.e by deliberate wrong translation). There are fanatics on both sides.
And historians are a strange bunch anyway - every one has their favorite theory that they want "proven".

Take for instance Barbara G. Walker i.e. "A Women's Dictionary of Myths and Secrets" (that's the book I have). Let me quote from her Wikipedia discussion page: This is entirely correct. And still the book is a valuable resource, because it gives a lot of starting point for own research and has an extensive bibliography. Also, as turned out, her harshest critics also resorted to lies to debunk her - either claiming she wrote wrong things that she didn't write at all (like Fenris Wheel coming from Fairy Wheel) or claiming that things she wrote are totally off, when leading scholars actually agree with her (the slipping of the shoe on Cinderella's foot as a metaphot for sex).
Try to find "truth" in all this chaos and watch how your brain slowly develops into a mass of goo.

As for the leg-breaking on the cross: Different time, different customs. Actually it was a good thing, since it severly shortened the suffering. Most subjects without broken legs would last at least three days. Some even nine.

Gruesome is, what the Catholics did to the Anabaptists in the 16th century. Not only did they burn literally hundreds of these "heretics" on the stake, they invented special medicine that prevented passing out so that the victims could "experience the cleansing" a lot longer with full awareness. The also devised a special method of "slow burning", stacking the wood so, that the victim would be engulfed in flames only for the last moments, so they could breathe a long time. Some of these burnings took several hours before the victim was dead. The were a "little more forgiving" with children. They would let them burn a little, and then mercifully break their neck with a noose that went through the stake.

The pagan Romans did not destroy the cultures they conquered.
The Greek did not destroy the cultures they conquered. Except for the late days of Alexander the Great, when he wanted to become a god.
The Mongols and Huns did not destroy the cultures they conquered. They all built multicultural empires. Live and let live.
The Germanic, Celtic and Slavic tribes did not wage a lot of war in thousands of years. And much less on each other. And even if they battled, it was more like a dispute than outright war. Often enough only the leaders would meet on the battlefield and duke it out in a fair duel. Tribes and villages were largely independent. To conquer made no sense, since you had one village and the other village before, and one village and the other village after.
The same with the native americans (in the north). Armed disputes? Yes. War and conquest? No. It's a little different with the Aztec and Maya, but won't go into this here.

Christianity, on the other hand, was very successfully spread with fire and sword, beginning with the first Christian Roman emperos that started to destroy the heritage of the tolerant empire, continuing with converts like Charles the Great, later the age of colonization.
So yeah, they were better, if you mean better in war and conquest. Ok they built some (christian) schools where they went (banning the other teachings). They tended the sick (after throwing away there "heathen" medicine, some of which is slowly rediscovered and really works wonders to ease the suffering i.e. of cancer patients).

I find this a little disturbing. I know a lot of christians, and most of them are nice people. I believe most of of the outspoken christians really mean well. But as an organized religion it seems to bring out the worst in people. If this is because of "the mission" or the inherent arrogance of monotheistic believers, I can't say.

To slay ones enemies and to covet what is theirs is nothing new. Its the oldest thing ever. And to use religions as excuse for doing is just as old.

Like i said, this is not something that is unique to christianity - they just happened to excel at it (conquering and killing that is): And why wouldnt they have? European countries were far-far more technologically advanced than any of the civilizations they steamrolled over the centuries. Such disparity between cultures had not really happened before Europe figured out how to do steel and guns.

Wealth was and is highly valued in western culture (note -culture- which is made out of other things besides religion) and when you have huge advantage over someone else, ofcourse they were going to use all they got to increase their wealth as much as possible.

Anyways, destroying whole civilizations isnt so easy until you get right "tools" for it to begin with - Huns and Mongols had to do with swords and bows, Europeans (=christians) on the other hand got to their peak power by guns, steel and various diseases which tagged along them.

Also you might want to note what happened in WW2 - quite few countries littrally butchered both their own and others citizens by millions in just few years. That sort of genocide would not have been possible by any means in say Alexanders time. Also i believe none of these WW2 massacres were motivated by religion, but instead by supposedly atheist countries.

People do the most incredible things given chance and power to get something for themselves. I am not christian myself, but neither i do see how christian belief in itself really would prompt your Average Joe to violence than any other organized religion around.

Any religion or policial stand can be used as excuse to do whatever, given good enough agitator.

I agree that violence, war and conquest are unfortunately normal human behaviour. But I think culture has a big influence on how (much) these tendencies are able to show or are even promoted. There are differences of cultures of tolerance (polytheistic, agnostic) or intolerance (monotheistic). Claim to absoluteness leads to fanaticism. It's the monotheisitic fanatics that destroy other people's culturel heritage, because "there can be only one".

The Holocaust of the Jews was rooted in the anti-semitism that goes way back. By Christian law, Jews weren't allowed to own land, even work other people's land - so they couldn't be farmers. The were not allowed to become craftsmen. So the only way to earn a living was becoming traders or bankers. Because they did not "work" they never became "of us" for the people. They were suspected to be lazy and greedy and there was hysteria about them sacrificing Christian children. They were ostracized and them condemned when they kept to themselves. And this is rooted in religion. Even if Hitler was atheist (optinions differ), most of the Germans back then were "good Christians". And the hate also had its root in religion.

Not always, India had the best factories,egypt was pretty advanced, they just weren't as violent. In fact they were amazed at the brutality of these enlightened christians.

No no no. Hitler was also a vegetarian, it had no relation to his crimes. Plus he mostly certainly a theist, if no christian. He makes so many references to his beloved god in Mein Kampf, it's mind boggling how anyone can postulate that he didn't believe in it.
And the Japanese believed that Hirohito was god when they slaughtered 12 million chinese in the most brutal ways imaginable. At least they knew their god existed. (hello Unit 731,don't read up on this before going to sleep)

Maybe you should read the bible more.

Doubt it.

Interesting theory: Big Bang alternative http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5313

Well, isn't that one of the most interesting questions and reason for debate for millenia?
I'm an agnostic, as I can't proof that god/gods exist(s), nor can I proof that they/he/she/it doesn't exist.

In addition it's very hard to find THE religion, as every single religion on this planet claims to be right, given that many of these religions are in direct conflict to others (monotheism vs multiple gods vs no gods at all, for example) this means indirectly also that most other religions must be wrong.
I know, somebody who grew up as a christian is absolutely sure that he/she's right. The same goes for buddhists, hinduists, muslims and jews.

Ask one and they'll tell you that they KNOW that they're right.

To me, the logical consequence was to stay absolutely neutral on that matter which also means, that I respect all religions and those who don't believe in anything equally. As one German atheist once said: "if you're right we'll know after death, if I'm right we'll never know".

Jews were simply victims of politics - sacrificed to elevate the Nazi party. Used to unite the Average Joes against common "enemy" so to speak. Had there been no jews in Germany, the Nazis would have given the same treatment to some other religion, political party or just "non-aryans" in general. It was not really about christianity and was not prompted by christianity. I cant remember Hitler basing his actions on bible nor conquering rest of the world for God or whatever.

I am not certain if youve noticed, but the usual talk about antisemitism sounds awful similar to how many atheists treat say christianity even in this thread:

"I know many christians, but to me it seems like organized religions brings out the worst in people. Christianity has killed alot of civiliztions in the past, how can anyone belong to such group?" etc

-> this is called stereotyping. Just as jews are seen by some as greedy bankers, the very same way many stamp (for eample) christians of today by actions which happened hundreds if not close to two thousand years ago. Seriously just how silly is that?

----

but back to WW2:

So how about the soviets, would you blame their deathtoll on orthodox church or atheism? ....or could it be that was also just politics afterall?

WW2 and all the genocides would have happened regardless whether christianity existed or not. It would not have mattered if the whole Europe had still retained Norse or Roman faith or had indeed been totally atheist. Geopolitics would still be the same. And as long as geopolitics remain same - the wars over them will eventually flare up given "right" timing and fitting excuse.

(-> check Ukraine and Crimea)

If i need oil and you live on land that has oil - its very likely ill find a way to get it from you one way or the other. Depending on the circumstance it might not be nice way.

Wars are really all about geopolitics and resources - the wars, fights and crisis over these are simply clothed in religious and/or (rival) political appearance to make them easier for masses to swallow. Afterall if you need to instigate conflict to get things done, those are tools you need.

---

Concerning culture, well religions are not culture. They are part of culture. Might be even very huge and integral part - but they are not the "whole culture".

None of religions in existence were born from void to "empty culture". Christianity, islam, buddhism and all the rest were born inside existing cultures and got cultivated by them. Absorbed their base values from them. As easy example huge part of our holidays are actually pagan holidays, which were simply given christian makeup so that the then pagan finns and other converts would accept christianity more painlessly.

Buddhism in asia has alot of ancestor/spirit worhip going on, spells and fortune casting - none of which having anything to do with the Buddhism Buddha was teaching about. All the "supernatural" stuff is just leftovers from older nature religions before buddhism - which it then ofcourse absorbed.

Depending on narrow or broad view on gods nature, one could say they are just as likely all "right" or "wrong".

if one has time and interest i believe it would be good to read as broadly about all the religions as possible and then promptly forget about all them. Forcing religion to oneself (or someone else) is not very good thing - life experience tends to help in these matters.

gunpowder and steel were invented and utilized before industrial age. could it be we are talking about different thing? And i have no doubt everyone who encountered europeans back then were shocked on many levels..

That japan thing is honor-culture at work, not religion. Certainly their emperor was regarded as the son of god, but the japanese mindset on strict honor was not born of Shinto - rather Shintoism was born along it and thus the emperor ended up being the son of god with robot-samurais.

Also good to note that japanese tended to have "rather" negative view on non-japanese. Killing non-japanese was probably not seen as killing humans (=japanese). Also with the samurai mentality you do what youre told or you die. I however cannot see the religion there as the main reason for the massacre(s).

Afterall Japan invaded China because of resources (geopolitics) and not religion.

I probably should. But i should also read about infrastructure planning and i think its going win this fight for now -_-
However, if you got some good views on how say bible makes people kill each other better than say quran or some other main religious text please do go ahead.

...its really all about which parts you read and how do you want to interprete them. with all the religions.

I dont. just reading news is proof enough.