I understand.

But if you click on the image, the annotation will say it is a county, which it is not. A county is not the same thing as a country.

It’s a state, not a county.

If I had tatoos that ugly I would seriously consider becoming one.

This would be great. I love coins.

But your coins don’t even have a face of a king and cool latin words on them, so they aren’t quite as great as I’d like.

I would add, that the old testament has been interpreted allegorically since before Christianity, since in the Roman Empire, Jews that were civilised had some difficulty accepting the rather nonsensical elements of the archaic books.

This sort of makes sense. The bible is a collection of books that are very different in style, so it makes sense that some are understood poetically, or allegorically, while others are quite literal.

So these seemingly silly elements of the bible were literally never understood literally by Christians, until the reformation, at least.

So while it may seem like modern Christians are trying to reinterpret the bible to avoid contradictions, that are caused by the idiocy of the ancient and medieval people, the reality is literally the exact opposite.

Well, sorry for the accusation. AI usually gives these bullet points when prompted.

Christianity is a child of the Jewish mysticism and Greek rationality. For someone that understands philosophy the idea of a god with a body, that looks like a human is absurd.

God is not in space, not in time, since according to Christian theology, these were created with the universe, so they are not independent from the creation. Before that(not in the temporal sense), there was only God.

Are these AI bullet points, lmao?

They feel like it’s wrong so it needs to be illegal.

They believe it to be immoral, so they want it to be illegal, yes. Is that not how people usually decide what should be legal and what shouldn’t?

Also, it seems disingenuous to say that

No amount of death or suffering of real live people is as important as their idea of a person.

I would say one can be opposed to abortions, and still care about other people. Clearly.

The state already regulates which practices may or may not be performed by doctors. This is hardly different.

The highest part of man is the one that is closest to god. The soul, clearly. The soul can partially grasp divine attributes like morality, knowledge, righteousness, etc.

I just find this line comical when you pretend Europe was progressive from the Greeks through to modern times rather than seeing the Enlightenment as a return to those values

Progress is a modern idea. The enlightenment was not a return to these values, because it was very different from what came before it.

You might be confusing rennaisance and enlightenment.

You might want to look into that Copernicus guy:

In 1533, Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter delivered a series of lectures in Rome outlining Copernicus’ theory. Pope Clement VII and several Catholic cardinals heard the lectures and were interested in the theory. On 1 November 1536, Nikolaus von Schönberg, Archbishop of Capua and since the previous year a cardinal, wrote to Copernicus from Rome:

Some years ago word reached me concerning your proficiency, of which everybody constantly spoke. At that time I began to have a very high regard for you. …For I had learned that you had not merely mastered the discoveries of the ancient astronomers uncommonly well but had also formulated a new cosmology. In it you maintain that the earth moves; that the sun occupies the lowest, and thus the central, place in the universe. …Therefore with the utmost earnestness I entreat you, most learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours to scholars, and at the earliest possible moment to send me your writings on the sphere of the universe together with the tables and whatever else you have that is relevant to this subject.

Also, you should look into that Galileo guy yourself. He and his inquires were favoured by the church, until they weren’t. It was a complicated matter, and to say that the church was opposed to science is just false.

The Enlightenment was only 300 years ago, and it only happened because the printing press (Invented in China, refined by Korea) allowed knowledge to spread outside of their given libraries.

Why did it not happen in China then? Also, as far as I understand, the Gutenberg press was made independently from the Chiense, and in any case this is not the sole reason for the enlightenment clearly.

Europe was not “anti-rationality”, because western Europe has always had a very rationalistic culture it inherited the Greek philosophical tradition, western Christianity is quite rationalistic as well, compared to other religions and orthodox Christianity.

Without the medieval intellectuals, the universities, the scholastics, there would be no modern science. It did not suddenly appear out of nowhere, and it did take 2000 years of the development of conceptual tools for it to emerge.

2000 years not since the enlightenment, but since the beginning of philosophy in Greece, clearly.

This is just absurd. How can you say Europe was anti-science, if modern science did not exist, so it was impossible to be opposed to it? And Europe was literally the region with the most rationalistic intellectual culture in the world.

If you do not know something, do not pretend you do.

I am not dismissing the achievements of other civilisations, but this is hardly a counterargument.

India is, indeed, the only place on earth where a rationalistic tradition emerged similar to the Greek philosophical tradition, and they did achieve quite a lot in maths as well I believe, but their intellectual tradition did not achieve what the western intellectual tradition did. This is just a fact.

Modern science is a result of two thousand years of intellectual work, during which a rich variety of conceptual tools was formed on the basis of which science emerged. It did so out of a rationalistic tradition, that has been developed by Europeans, other Mediterranean peoples and Arabs, but the centre of which was western Europe.

I am not religious. You commented about the sociocultural roots of religion. You were wrong.

But because I was not making up bullshit about Christianity to insult it, but instead was actually, unlike you, “rational and reasonable”, your binary thinking led to you writing even more fan-fiction about religion, unfortunately.

Feel free to write another essay full of nonsense.

The Jews were already militant, and we know that Christians were not even perceived as a distinct group from Jews by the Romans initially.

The scientific tradition was also exported to the rest of the world from Europe(and parts of Asia, I suppose) via colonialism, I do not see anyone complaining about that.

“Proletariat”

While I do not endorse the Marxist view of history, I have to say that there was no proletariat in antiquity according to Historical Materialism. Slave societies had slaves, not the proletariat.

Lmao, Christianity emerged as a religion of disempowered Jews, what absolute power? Absolutism did not even exist in antiquity/middle ages.

I think this might be

fucking bullshit made up by patriarchal assholes

Well, the human body is imperfect due to the fall, it was only perfect in the Garden of Eden.

God does not have a body, obviously. This is not what is meant by this.