Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The point is this. History began sometime around 3000-2500 B.C. in the Middle East. So between 2000 B.C. and the time of Christ, in what way did life get better for ordinary people? One can hardly point to the Pyramids as progress. The Pyramids were built by having people push stone blocks weighing many tons up ramps. It was only because the Pharaohs had almost the entire population of Egypt as de facto slave labor that they could build Pyramids at all. When we look at the Pyramids, we should see a tremendous human rights abuse, not a great achievement. Likewise with a mention of "vast empires", it's certainly true that vast empires existed in ancient times, but were they any good for people? Most of those vast empires were horrendously violent and cruel? On the particular issue of new technologies, I've said that there was very little technology invented before Christ's time, not that there was none. Still the fact remains that the Romans farmed basically the stame way that people had for thousands of years. They made clothing the same way that people had for thousands of years. Their civilization largely discouraged innovation.
Once Christian civilization began, technological progress actually began to benefit human beings. In medieval Europe they invented crop rotation, the iron plough, horse collars so that horses could do the ploughing, fish farming, and vastly improved breeding techniques to produce better strains of everything. Soon they had vastly more food for everyone and much less chance of starvation. They invented the fulling mill, the spinning wheel, and foot-powered loom, and other improvements in clothing-making, which allowed almost everyone to have clothes rather than dressing in rags for the first time. In ancient civilizations the great majority of labor was done by people. In medieval Europe it was done by animals, machines, wind, and water. This not only freed people from literally back-breaking labor, but also meant that it took fewer people to do the labor, so more people could follow intellectual or artistic pursuits. It begs the question of why there were so many changes in medieval Europe after thousands of years when many civilizations all over the globe could have made these changes and didn't? Clearly there must be some reason. The reason is that Christian civilization not only accepted but was actively in favor of progress, whereas no other civilization ever had been up to that point, as historian Rodney Stark has documented in his book The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Lead to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success.
That is not at issue here, only your nasty ad hom "the whole thinking world."
Which is proven false.
Anatheist I want to ask you a question. I'm sure you know that the Bible speaks of both a God and a Devil. Let's just assume for a moment that you do believe in the existence of God, the God that is spoken of in the Bible. If you did believe that, would we be safe to assume that since you have a belief in the biblical God that you would also have to believe in the existence of Satan?
As for me, and the rest of the thinking world
ORLY?
Click on the little blue arrow, read it, and weep. Wrong again, Ana!
LOL ummm...can you see the word "whole" in quotes anywhere?
We are speaking hypothetically? I suppose yes, I would have to believe in the devil of the bible if I believed in the god of the bible. Although I'd like to add its difficult to say what I would believe in any hypothetical situation.
The amazing thing about how the Devil works is we have discussed every single ridiculous detail of everything that is basically a waste of time. The Devil is really good at keeping people distracted, as this is shown through this topic as well as probably about 95% of the other topics on this site.
I will say that from talking to many non-believers, 95% of them do not believe in God because of the fact that they see people who call themselves Christians, they go to church and put smiles on their faces, but deep down they are wretched wolves in sheep clothing. I have heard it over and over "if Christians are like that, then there cannot be a God"
Anatheist, I don't know if you were once a believer and were turned off or not, but the most important thing to remember is you CANNOT put any trust in man, at all. I learned this the hard way. I went to church with many people who would smile in your face, and tell you they love you and all that good stuff. But their actions showed nothing but pure evil, their actions that are performed behind closed doors where nobody (but God) can see. They smile at your face, then as soon as you turn around they stab you right in the back. Churches are packed full of these Pharisees, these self righteous, stiff necked believers that think they are following Christ, but they are not. I have had these people literally tell me to my face "you are going to hell" and "there is no forgiveness for you". I had a time in my life where I was struggling with something and I needed someone's help, where were my Christian brothers and sisters? I thought we were all in this together! When I lost my home years ago I had "Christians" who once said to me "if you get stuck you can stay with us for a while", only to later on at the last minute say "we just don't have room", as they live in a $350,000 house. Then I have a friend of mine who is hardcore Atheist, barely has two sticks to rub together, and he opens his home to me without even a thought? What is up with that?
I will tell you what is up with that. Too many Christians are guilty of preaching the word, but not living the Word. They think that Christianity means let's have our nice little quiet church where everyone looks normal, no teens with rock and roll shirts or piercings. I can tell you that if you for some reason have chosen to reject God because of how other Christians have treated you, then it's time for you to lose your faith. When I say "lose your faith" I mean completely lose your faith in man, realize that there is not one person on this Earth that has your best interests at heart, no there is not even one. This is what I had to do, when I found that even people who were involved in the ministry would not reach out to me for support on different spiritual issues, and nobody would help me when I didn't have a home. I ended up telling my Atheist friend who opened his home to me "it's funny how you don't believe in God, but you seem to live your life closer to His Word than most Christians I know."
Even on here Anatheist, just about everyone on here is arguing with you, they are more focused on proving that you are wrong than following the spirit of God and letting the Holy Spirit do his work. They argue because they are self righteous, in their minds and hearts they have transcended where you are, they feel they are now an authority to pass down judgement.
Anatheist if you ever want to have a discussion instead of an argument, you can always send me a private message. I will be praying that the Holy Spirit will speak to your heart, I just hope that you will open your heart to listen.
I'll even be nice enough to explain the difference. The "whole thinking world" would refer to everyone as a matter of fact. The "rest of thinking world" would refer to those who agree with the statement, as a matter of opinion. It wasn't a statement meant to malign anyone.
Ok, now let's place this in context. You said (and I quote) "As for me, and the rest of the thinking world." Now to me, that reads as if anyone capable of thought, or at least rational thought, would de facto have no choice but to agree with you.
You meant it to mean just those that agree with you? Please allow me to be so bold as to suggest that the phrase doesn't convey that. Perhaps "me, and all like-minded people."
I point this out because there are times when, for whatever reason, I say something that makes total sense to me, (and a few others) that leave others sincerely bewildered.
This seems to be one of those times, 'cept the shoe is on the other foot. I pointed out how there were some pretty bright individuals who disagreed with your particular point; namely, Ben Franklin and the other FF's who disassociated with Paine over "The Age of Reason." He was urged not to release it, after he requested an audience for a proof-read. (Reminds me of Bush asking for UN support, not getting it, then going in anyway; but I digress)
Anyway the single greatest evidence of this is that Paine died a pauper. Although there is a paper trail, which you could find, if you were so inclined. I found it interesting, especially since the very character of the whole thing is quite different than anything anyone taught in school.
That's news to me. The only link I recall giving that's related to Columbus and the myth of the flat earth is this one, and it flaty (yuk yuk) says that you're wrong and I'm right. It says: "The idea that the uncouth people of the Middle Ages thought the Earth was flat is an example of the myth that has been propagated since the nineteenth century to give us a quite unfair view of this vibrant and exciting period." So pray tell, when exactly did I give a link to evidence for people believing in a flat earth in Columbus' time?
In post #81 you said "Would Columbus have sailed to the Americas if he accepted the beliefs of so many flat-earthers?" I then gently pointed out that nobody in Columbus' time believed in a flat earth and gave a citation to the article, written by an actual historian, to prove the point. Rather than admitting to being wrong, you doubled down in post #87 by saying: "For the record, its entirely likely that the majority of the population of Columbus' time did believe in a flat-earth." I asked you for some evidence to back up this claim, and thus far we haven't seen any. So I hereby ask you again: do you, or do you not, have evidence that Christopher Columbus ever met a single person who believed that the earth was flat?
Okay, so you've got a page on Wikipedia which claims that the Flat Earth Society exists and links to this webpage. That raises two questions. First, why do you say that "they will give you a lovely bible-based theory for a flat earth", when in actuality the webpage doesn't mention the Bible? Second, what makes you think that the person who made that webpage actually believes that the earth is flat, as opposed to seeing it as a joke?
That a treatise wasn't popular in its time or that the author died poor isn't indicative of the truth it contains. I chose that quote because its good. It's easily understood by the lay person and the logic is sound.
As for the Flat-Earth Society, I did a little research, and found scriptural quotes from the founder which he bases his flat-earth beliefs upon. If you would provide me with an address, I'll request some material from him to be sent to you and you can judge for yourself his "seriousness".
Ok, now I have NO recollection of the original quote you're referring to have "chosen." I'm curious to see it, if I can also agree it has sound logic ...
Yeah, you could make the case, based on woeful distortion of Biblical content. You're familiar with Poe's law?
He asked for proof that people still believe in a flat-earth. I gave it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?