Another question to Darwin dude, however: Why are you not concerned with the Qur'an, a book which affirms slavery of non-Muslims through and through (as I'm sure you've read, being an enlightened intellectual). Muslim states have been the biggest perpetrators of slavery in history. Thomas Jefferson took us to war with some of them in the Barbary wars over just this issue--impressing sailors as slaves. Throughout the 1600s and 1700s Muslims took tens of millions as slaves, and it still goes on in Muslim countries and in Africa where Arab Muslims up and down the continent enslave and persecute Africans. Why, the official form of capital punishment in the Sudan is CRUCIFIXION! And this vile torture is routinely visited upon Christians there.

I'm sure you also know about the incalculable amount of text preservation and copying which Christian monks performed throughout history--not just transmitting Christian writings but all ancient wisdom--astronomy, philosophy, etc. Why, without Christianity to have preserved it, you would never have Aristotle, and without Aristotle you'd never have Darwin (in that a tremendous amount of Darwin's thought is predicated on Aristotle's Biology--but I'm sure you knew all that).

The account itself is BIZARRE. It took place in the era when Spain had become master of Mexico but there were still indigenous peoples and languages who were basically a slave class. Juan Diego was one such. One day he was walking past a hill called Tepeyac, which, interestingly, was the traditional site where a pagan mother goddess had always been worshipped (!!!). It was atop this hill that Mary appeared. She cooed and spoke lovingly about how one of the Indians' Gods (Teotl) was really the same God as the Christian God, and that she is the mother of Teotl (God)--it's all the same thing you see! She demanded Juan tell the bishop about her and wanted a shrine built there in HER honor. Guess what two words she NEVER mentioned--Jesus or Christ. It was just me me me and our Gods are all the same. There's more to it than that, but I'm out of space.

I don't see any contradictions. What's there to get bent out of shape over?

Our Left is more nihilistic and death-obsessed than Europe's Left, and trends even more social than social than social Europe. I can't believe how stupid our repubs are to fall for this

And Constantine, of course, was "Pontifex Maximus" of the Empire, back when Pontifiex Maximus was a roman imperial title--that is before the Roman Church took on this secular Roman aspect (as well as too many others) and began styling its leader pontifex maximus...adding along the way 'Vicar of Peter" and eventually changing this outright to "Vicar of Christ" (though I'm told the Catholic church doesn't change even when it changes).

I'd love to see her try that nonsense in Arabia or Pakistan or Iran..."Oh no no no, I don't need to convert--you see I already AM a Muslim in addition to being Christian..."

It's true their values were deeply influenced by Christian philosophical notions, but every bit as much by Greco-Roman values. It's absurd to say that the Republic was anti-Christian and it's equally absurd to say it was founded as a Christian Republic. Their interest was law and civic virtues.

and 8:12
12...and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place ONCE FOR ALL, having obtained eternal redemption.

What is your fixation on what my name is? As you asked earlier, "am I ashamed to give my name." Yep, you've got me, Michael, I'm ashamed to give my name because I'm a terrorist on the FAA watch list and don't want to give it out. Seriously--ashamed to give my name? That doesn't even make any sense. I could tell you any name under the sun whether a moniker or my Christian name, but what would it matter? What would it add to the discussion? What, would you somehow recognize me then? Would my points suddenly be more or less valid? As if it would mean anything. As I've told other people before on this board, I write 'anonymous' so that some of the freaks out there (not meaning you) don't follow me from thread to thread like they do other people. Beyond that, I have always found that the "why won't you give me a name" nonsense is always the last refuge of a person who has no real argument-a lame ad hominem. If you're so concerned about names why don't you ask GG or cbcpreacher or other people--who are every bit as anonymous as me--what their real names are? My name is my business, and your business is apparently to fixate on my name rather than arguments (which are either true or false irrespective of what my name is) which you'd apparently rather not legitimately answer.