Religion and Atheism

[KanadaHye]

Re: Religion and Atheism

To bad that the ordinary people were not the one lending the money but other rich people who needed fast cash. A king or a lord that needed money those were the people that needed the money. You are trying to make a connection between the banking that exists today and the one of the past.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.... ordinary people aren't born with money to lend. Not then and not now.

[KarotheGreat]

Re: Religion and Atheism

They had money and they were using the people and charging greater interest rates than the law allowed. They were breaking the law. The people borrowed money that they knew they wouldn't be able to pay back. Its like the relationship between a drug dealer and his addicts. So in the end, St. Louis just killed 2 birds with one stone.

To bad that the ordinary people were not the one lending the money but other rich people who needed fast cash. A king or a lord that needed money those were the people that needed the money. You are trying to make a connection between the banking that exists today and the one of the past.

[yerazhishda]

Re: Religion and Atheism

There are 2 possibilities and there is no way you can get around this:

1. Since we wrote the Bible and we can make mistakes, then the Bible is flawed.
2. We wrote it down perfectly with 0 mistakes in which case it is the same as God having written the Bible.
(note that most Christians really really really love to insist on #2 )

This quote just shows your arrogance and pride regarding a subject you know nothing about. You make claims about "most Christians" because they happen to support your philosophical prejudices.

First of all the two largest denominations of Christianity are Catholicism and Orthodoxy. As you know as a people, we are Orthodox. Both of these Christianities go back to Apostolic times and are based on the fact that each consecutive bishop has received the "laying on of hands" (thus authority) by the previous bishop, going all the way back to the Apostle that founded that Church.

NOW, both of these Christianities reject the idea of what you are talking about (sola scriptura). Sola Scriptura is the idea that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, literally. This is a new Protestant idea (think Reformation) and has been rejected by the ancient Churches, going back to the third, fourth, and fifth centuries. If you had any knowledge on the topic you purpose to be talking about, you would already know all this and I wouldn't have to explain it.

The MAJORITY of Christians (i.e. majority lives OUTSIDE of your direct environment, the USA) acknowledge that the Gospels were copied over and over again. However, especially when concerning the New Testament, the small discrepencies that do occur are usually grammatical and rarely affect the meaning of the text. The field of comparing these copies is called Textual Criticism.

The reason why this does not phase most Christians (i.e. Catholics and Orthodox) is because we also have Tradition. Tradition is not "rituals" or "superstition" but the guidance of the early Church Fathers who lived during and after the time of Christ to guide us in the correct interpretation of the Scriptures - because they were infinitely more aware of the culture and language of the people of the time than we could be.

By the way, the best proof for the Resurrection is the existence of the Church. Multitudes of people are not going to willingly be martyred for something that isn't real, and they ALL couldn't have been hallucinating.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Where did I talked about heroism, just told those people were great men?


Read the word wrong lol
No he confiscated from all the xxxs didn't matter if they had done anything wrong or not. It was enough if they were xxx and had money. His burning of xxxish holy books and the prosecution of the Cathar. And add to that the expansion of the inquisition in France you get the picture of a weak king that couldn't lead lost too much money and made the civilians pay.

The fact that after confiscating the money he didn't allow the debts of the people to be annulled showed that he just wanted money nothing more. There are so many better kings than this fool.

They had money and they were using the people and charging greater interest rates than the law allowed. They were breaking the law. The people borrowed money that they knew they wouldn't be able to pay back. Its like the relationship between a drug dealer and his addicts. So in the end, St. Louis just killed 2 birds with one stone.

[KarotheGreat]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Where do I get from? Just look around or better yet browse through some threads here... atheists constantly brag about their intelligence, intellectuality and knowledge/education...

I believe you mean well but you are a bit confused... we all may be so at some point of our life.

Well most atheist that I've seen have been more intelligent than your extremist Christian that uses his bible to try and prove everything in the world.

I'm not confused have been an atheist for a while now.

[KarotheGreat]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Now I see where you get your visions of "heroism" from....

Where did I talked about heroism, just told those people were great men?

Usury - originally was the charging of interest on loans; this included charging a fee for the use of money, such as at a bureau de change. In places where interest became acceptable, usury was interest above the rate allowed by law.

Read the word wrong lol
No he confiscated from all the xxxs didn't matter if they had done anything wrong or not. It was enough if they were xxx and had money. His burning of xxxish holy books and the prosecution of the Cathar. And add to that the expansion of the inquisition in France you get the picture of a weak king that couldn't lead lost too much money and made the civilians pay.

The fact that after confiscating the money he didn't allow the debts of the people to be annulled showed that he just wanted money nothing more. There are so many better kings than this fool.

[Lucin]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Where did you get this from?
Marc Anthony and Augustus were two corrupt bastards, Caesar was even more corrupt and egoistic and opportunistic than both of them combined. Does that make them any less of great men?

Where do I get from? Just look around or better yet browse through some threads here... atheists constantly brag about their intelligence, intellectuality and knowledge/education...

I believe you mean well but you are a bit confused... we all may be so at some point of our life.

When atheists do run across believers who are extremely intelligent (those who devote their lives towards noble causes) they will belittle them saying things like "how could someone so brilliant believe in fairy tales".

I agree! That or 'hear' voices in their head

[KanadaHye]

Re: Religion and Atheism

He didn't confiscate from his own population as general policy, just from those that owned land and were actively involved in usury. He also didn't forgive the debts that the general population had due to living the lifestyle of drunken sailors. Like I said, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

he only did it when he needed the money that's all, and what does it matter who he did confiscate from.

PS it wasn't landowners but money owners, so the nobility the real users of people didn't lose anything

Usury - originally was the charging of interest on loans; this included charging a fee for the use of money, such as at a bureau de change. In places where interest became acceptable, usury was interest above the rate allowed by law.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Where did you get this from?
Marc Anthony and Augustus were two corrupt bastards, Caesar was even more corrupt and egoistic and opportunistic than both of them combined. Does that make them any less of great men?

Now I see where you get your visions of "heroism" from....

[KarotheGreat]

Re: Religion and Atheism

He didn't confiscate from his own population as general policy, just from those that owned land and were actively involved in usury. He also didn't forgive the debts that the general population had due to living the lifestyle of drunken sailors. Like I said, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

he only did it when he needed the money that's all, and what does it matter who he did confiscate from.

PS it wasn't landowners but money owners, so the nobility the real users of people didn't lose anything