Ahh, sorry, you are correct.
When I say "slaughter", I am referring primarily to the particularly brutal methods by which the early Christians were killed. The Emperor Nero, in particular, harboured a hatred for them characterized by irrational vitriol.
In the summer of 64, Rome suffered a terrible fire that burned for six days and seven nights consuming almost three quarters of the city. The people accused the Emperor Nero for the devastation claiming he set the fire for his own amusement. In order to deflect these accusations and placate the people, Nero laid blame for the fire on the Christians. The emperor ordered the arrest of a few members of the sect who, under torture, accused others until the entire Christian populace was implicated and became fair game for retribution. As many of the religious sect that could be found were rounded up and put to death in the most horrific manner for the amusement of the citizens of Rome. The ghastly way in which the victims were put to death aroused sympathy among many Romans, although most felt their execution justified.
The following account was written by the Roman historian Tacitus in his book Annals published a few years after the event. Tacitus was a young boy living in Rome during the time of the persecutions:
"Therefore, to stop the rumor [that he had set Rome on fire], he [Emperor Nero] falsely charged with guilt, and punished with the most fearful tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were [generally] hated for
their enormities. Christus, the founder of that name, was put to death as a
criminal by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the reign of Tiberius, but
the pernicious superstition - repressed for a time, broke out yet again, not
only through Judea, - where the mischief originated, but through the city of
Rome also, whither all things horrible and disgraceful flow from all quarters,
as to a common receptacle, and where they are encouraged. Accordingly first
those were arrested who confessed they were Christians; next on their
information, a vast multitude were convicted, not so much on the charge of
burning the city, as of "hating the human race."
In their very deaths they were made the subjects of sport: for they were
covered with the hides of wild beasts, and worried to death by dogs, or nailed
to crosses, or set fire to, and when the day waned, burned to serve for the
evening lights. Nero offered his own garden players for the spectacle, and
exhibited a Circensian game, indiscriminately mingling with the common people in the dress of a charioteer, or else standing in his chariot. For this cause a
feeling of compassion arose towards the sufferers, though guilty and deserving of exemplary capital punishment, because they seemed not to be cut off for the public good, but were victims of the ferocity of one man."
No- I said that I would not attempt to use logic in order to convince someone of my views. Faith and logic are disparate domains, informed by separate faculties and motivations. I have already outlined why I believe as I do, and many of my own reasons are rooted in very logical premises.
I am not telling anybody what to believe, or how to live their life. The fact is, I have enough trouble giving a damn about my own. Why would I have any interest in dictating social norms when I never abide by them? I disregard the law on a daily basis. And if I had to identify with any political ideology, it would be Libertarian, ffs. So many people make so many assumptions, just because I believe in God.
I don't expect to be "immune to ciriticism", here of all places. I love a good debate, even when it gets dirty and personal. But someone who is so cowardly as to don a sockpuppet in order to present his case, and who calls me a "religious idiot", in spite of not even being able to spell the term he uses to superciliously dismiss my arguments, is not worthy of a well-reasoned response. :P
No.... Its a bastardised masogynist bunch of dissociated prose,
manipulated and written to A: push Patriarchy ..and B: to further the
coffers of the "ordained".
Wtf is this? Have you ever taken a single history course in all of your life? Have you any idea where the concept of "patriarchy" might have originated?
The Bible presents a very clear, interwoven historical narrative. There were no "ordained" ministers at the time of Christ: such is an invention of the Church, based on what I believe is a brazen misinterpretation of certain verses.
The early church was very organic, unpretentious and informal. Jesus was a revolutionary who eschewed the social order and religious traditions prevalent in his day. People like us would have likely respected him much more than the Pharisees, who were indistinguishable from the corrupt politicians of our day. Furthermore, Christianity emancipated women to a greater degree than any other contemporaneous culture in antiquity.
And just to rub salt in the wound
...... the nazarene decreed that because god gave man a choice .... all
the bad shit that happens ..is a direct result of that "choice". What a
fucking glaring and hypocritical cop out.
No, all the bad shit happened because of what man chose- and because of what we all continue to choose, daily. To quote M.E's twitter:
"Are we better than they? No, in no wise, for we are all under sin; As it is writtten, there is none righteous, no, not one."
Perhaps its frustraion and pseudo-emascualtion at their own inability to grow the balls to thumb their nose at a god they may disbelieve in.
Theyre probably "fence standers" who will renounce their diabolicol , bad-assness on their deathbeds (pussies).
Now, fundie girl ...go forth and make me muffins!!!!
I wanted to drop it on Friday night, but it's my prerogative to pick up the debate at any time it suits me, just as it is yours to refrain from responding, if you so desire.
So what... Are you unable to counter my retort with anything more substantive than "you ungrateful whore"?
Why are you so upset, Sugar? You should learn to stop taking everything I say so personally. :)