Why does Christianity try to take credit for "human rights" when it was only after Europeans rejected Christianity and...

Why does Christianity try to take credit for "human rights" when it was only after Europeans rejected Christianity and God that they were able to come up with the idea of human rights? "Freedom of religion" "Freedom of speech" "Sexual freedom" "Economic freedom" "Slavery is bad" "Stop burning people for witchcraft" "Gender identity" "Gender expression" "Freedom of movement" "Democracy". Christianity is responsible for none of these ideas. Why do modern day Christians constantly try to retcon history to conform with their modern beliefs?

Attached: serfs2.jpg (1920x1008, 505.09K)

Other urls found in this thread:

tektonticker.blogspot.com/2022/05/today-i-have-special-guest-piece-by.html
bibleodyssey.org/en/tools/bible-basics/does-the-bible-relate-to-history-as-it-actually-happened
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

none of those are any good either and ultimately leads to the collapse of our civilization we see today

not saying whether they're good or not. its just TONS of "Christians" today claim their religion and book are responsible for why we have those things today. its cringe.

>"Freedom of religion" "Freedom of speech" "Sexual freedom" "Economic freedom" "Slavery is bad" "Stop burning people for witchcraft" "Gender identity" "Gender expression" "Freedom of movement" "Democracy"
all of these are bad

Because big nosed scum and their fanboys are morons and liars.

Europe was as shitty as any other place ruled by sandniggers until a few centuries ago.

Christianity is the original satanic inversion.

Attached: EFA37AB1-27F5-4C0F-ACF7-F80AB36E26F2.jpg (578x742, 426.94K)

You can debate which version of Christianity is purest, but that Christianity itself is true is basically indisputable from a historical standpoint. With the evidence we have for them there is no consistent standard for historical truth that can be devised that excludes Christ's miracles without excluding basically everything from before the invention of HD video, see tektonticker.blogspot.com/2022/05/today-i-have-special-guest-piece-by.html

They always claim morality comes from the bible, as if everyone was scamming and killing eachother at first sight up until the bible was written. Christians will say all of those things you mentioned are bad because they can't answer your question, they always have some excuse that tends to end up with them claiming they don't need to explain anything

I wouldn’t bother debating any of it. It’s all garbage. Some is more watered down than others, but it’s garbage none the less.

What do you think about the evidence that article presents though? If that's rejected then basically everything in history has to be rejected. The evidence is too thorough

Alright Moishe, I think it’s time for your bedtime. Ur circumcision is tommorrow.

Ain’t clicking that shit. Unironically don’t care. Abrahamic faith is a cancer.

Worship muh jew or you’re the jew is jewish.

Attached: 89F879EB-DEDF-4BF6-9090-879731CBE451.png (800x1000, 928.36K)

That article is pretty confusing. It's saying that thousands of people saw a particular divine thing and the proof for it happening is that it was written down. Then they say it's not possible to refute that it happened because how can any truth in history be established at all if we don't trust what was written down.
But the thing is we don't expect people to just believe anything that's written down about history, we use archeologists instead to verify things using the scientific method and historians to help fill out possibilities of what might have happened. This religion professor explains pretty well why most of the bible is fictitious and shouldn't be read as though it's factual because it could be completely made up and there's no way to tell
bibleodyssey.org/en/tools/bible-basics/does-the-bible-relate-to-history-as-it-actually-happened

The archaeology actually points directly to it all being made up. In fact the blatant contradictions in the stories point to it all being made up.

hooman ritez - means killing millions of innocent babies.

But they are correct.
Christianity = enlightenment.

Correct.

Morality comes from the Bible.

Rejection of Christianity = Enlightenment

Sounds like you would rather try communism.

the overton window could literally be anything and these jew ass christians will say "this is what our religion has always supported" and take some random bible verses out of context. fucking snakes.

Stop being stupid.

You are not seriously considering the points it makes. Let's take a look. Under your perspective, what is the sequence of events that lead to Tacitus and Josephus reporting what they do there?

> Slavery is bad
Slavery wasn't a thing in medieval Europe though, and it wasn't a thing because the church was strongly opposed it.

Wrong.
When the Europeans started digging up the Middle East over the last 200 years they found that it verified the Bible. Not all of them were pleased about that.

Wrong.
The archeology actually confirmed the Bible.

The enlightenment is at best a continuation of the protestant revolution and its values

Communism is secular Christianity. Read Acts.

>says the philosemitic fairytale aficionado

Sure thing.
Go ask the Communist Chinese how enlightened they feel.

What.

Serfdom was slavery.

Not even close to accurate.

No, it wasn't.
Slavery = forced labor

Real question is why does Christianity try to take credit for the achievements of white people? If Constantine had chosen Mithraism as the Roman state religion Italians still would have built great marble monuments and cathedrals. Meanwhile, Syriac Christians and Coptic Christians are, have always been and will always be underachieving sandniggers. Even 16th century Japanese Christian converts achieved nothing of note.

Ask the kekistani memeflag about the weather in Tel Aviv.

Serfdom was forced labor. Try a second book.