re: Why can’t we separate Conservative values from religion?

quote:

---

Why can’t we separate Conservative values from religion?

---

Who is we? You have a mouse in your pocket?

I think a majority of Christians are conservatives, some are liberals, neither are mutually exclusive, but what you are asking is for the Christians to change or mute their beliefs to accommodate you and your non-belief to make you feel comfortable. A devout follower of Christ (even those who fail daily, such as myself) base their daily lives and decisions on the teachings of Jesus. It's not something true Christians can turn on and off (well not supposed to).

I won't even try to debate an atheist on the existence of God because. I know it would be a exercise of futility and frustration (again, my failure). This pairs with your comment " it looks like cult that requires belief in listening to an insane man recite crazy passages on Sundays with a wealth tax". I believe, as do many, there are a lot of charlatans, religion can be big money, power and sex if you are corrupt enough to sell your soul.

I know people that are atheist that are conservatives, I know more that are commie liberals. I personally don't care if you are an atheist and have conservative values, that's great for you . If you feel uncomfortable, and you shouldn't, then the problem resides with you. This is a free country, at least at the time of this post, you don't have to believe in anything you don't want to believe and you don't have to debate every person who does not believe as you (see prior comment about exercise of futility and frustration).

quote:

---

Why can’t we separate Conservative values from religion?

---

Because conservative values are derived from Christian morality.

quote:

---

The greatest influence is Jesus, Himself.

---

Of the 27 books of the New Testament, only 4 are about his life. Well, 4 that made it as acceptable. There were actually dozens.

Most of the books were written generations after Jesus.

quote:

---

We have multiple denominations because people sometimes interpret texts to have different meanings, and sometimes because people deliberately pervert the scriptures for their own means, which we would call false Christianity.

---

And don't they all come from the Catholic church? As far as western Europe goes since I have to make that distinction, I guess.

quote:

---

Jesus, Himself, is widely accepted even by secular historians as being a true historical figure.

---

That is not an endorsement of what is said about him.

quote:

---

And it is not the religion of Paul. Paul was an apostle who spread the word that Jesus taught.

---

Or he was someone who perverted the message in order to make it palatable for government and leaders while turning Jesus into an idol. He was considered a heretic by other sects, but that was done away with by the Romans.

His story on Damascus Road for example is total bullshite.

quote:

---

but genuine eyewitness testimony of those who walked and talked with Him.

---

None of them were written by eyewitnesses. Some of them were written hundreds of years later. The gospels were written anonymously. At best there could be some oral repetition, which is a poor form of testimony.

quote:

---

His story on Damascus Road for example is total bullshite

---

I remember you.

You had to create an alternate account?
Did you get banned or everyone started ignoring you for being a troll?

Why are so desperate to disprove the gospel?
If you don't want to believe it - fine - don't.

quote:

---

You think people should get banned for talking about these things? Seriously?

---

You're pretty poor at reading, but that may be because of your age...... being that you were with Paul on the road to Damascus.

Troll.

quote:

---

Of the 27 books of the New Testament, only 4 are about his life. Well, 4 that made it as acceptable. There were actually dozens.

---

How many books of the Bible are dedicated to anyone else? Those four books are the Gospel. How many books needed to be written about his life? 40? Those books are specifically about his life, but Jesus' teachings are referenced all throughout the New Testament.

quote:

---

And don't they all come from the Catholic church? As far as western Europe goes since I have to make that distinction, I guess.

---

None of them come from the Catholic church. The Catholic church, itself, is a denomination that rose from the early Christian movement. I will say this once more: The Catholic church made up doctrines that are not found in scripture, and Bible believing Christians left that church because of it. you don't say that the Catholic church influenced every other denomination, when these denominations specifically rejected Catholic doctrine. They rejected it because the Catholics moved too far downstream from original doctrine which, itself, served as the influence for the protestant movement, not Catholicism. And I don't agree with every denomination, as some of them only made minor tweaks and didn't really correct much of anything.

quote:

---

That is not an endorsement of what is said about him.

---

What in the world is this supposed to mean? Saying that hardly anyone rejects the existence of Jesus is not an endorsement? There is historical evidence for Jesus. People choose to believe whatever they will about Him, but denying that he ever existed is willful ignorance. That was the point.

quote:

---

Or he was someone who perverted the message in order to make it palatable for government and leaders while turning Jesus into an idol. He was considered a heretic by other sects, but that was done away with by the Romans.

---

This is one of the most ridiculous claims I've ever seen. No matter what you believe, there is no way Paul is "perverting" anything, by spreading a message of hope, and there is especially no way he was doing anything to make it "more palatable" for government, when every government in the world was pagan, and he was risking his life to spread the message of Jesus, and ultimately was killed in the end for it. He had nothing to gain from the world, but everything to gain in eternity for his faith.

He was considered a heretic by the Pharisees and by pagans. What else would you expect? That's supposed to be some kind of proof that Paul was a false teacher? They thought Jesus was a heretic, too, remember?

quote:

---

His story on Damascus Road for example is total bullshite.

---

Were you there? You somehow find it impossible to believe that the Son of God could appear in front of him and blind him, bring conviction upon him, restore his sight and use him to spread the Gospel? What makes this somehow unbelievable, but not other accounts in the Bible? You aren't a Christian, so you don't really believe any of it. Is your unbelief evidence that Paul, or any figure in the Bible, is a liar?

quote:

---

None of them were written by eyewitnesses. Some of them were written hundreds of years later. The gospels were written anonymously. At best there could be some oral repetition, which is a poor form of testimony.

---

I'm starting to get the impression that you aren't a very serious student of the things you claim to know. The Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All disciples who walked with Jesus. Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus, and wrote a large number of books.. John also wrote Revelation.

Not a single New Testament book was written after the first century. All writers either new Jesus, or were contemporaries with those who did. Anything written about Jesus hundreds of years later was not part of scripture, and was left out for a reason.

Try being honest next time.