Why is the Bible the most powerful anti-Christian book? Why did the church threaten the death penalty for owning the Bible? Christian dogmas and their history. Unknown facts from the history of Christianity. Heaven and hell, original sin

by

In this article, I will primarily address the topic of criticism of Christianity based on the Bible. The most important dogmas of Christian churches are not supported by the Bible. Few people realize that Christianity and the Bible have practically nothing in common.
                       Since Christianity is an egregore that has very strong protection, there are unfortunately extremely few people, experts, who deal with a critical view of Christianity. Unfortunately, it is not important what is true, but what the majority thinks and the collective consciousness, which unfortunately is not inclined to the truth. I try to believe that one day the time of enlightenment will come, when the bag will be torn open with experts who criticize Christianity (hopefully this will happen within 100-200 years).
There are extremely few experts who critically engage in scientific research of Christianity, such as the history of Christianity, the history of the development of Christian dogmas, or scientific research into the manipulation of Bible translations.
Furthermore, it is very important that many scientists and personalities/authorities from the academic community follow in my footsteps, as this will significantly contribute to raising awareness.

My opinion on Christianity, the Bible

Religion and the church are tools for enslaving people. There is a lot of nonsense in the Bible, but you can also find very positive, inspiring, and instructive wisdom there.

My approach to the critique of Christianity

I mostly check Bible translations in passages that confirm the most important dogmas/doctrines of Christianity. Most often, this type of research shows that the translations have been manipulated, distorted, or falsified. It is very sad that I am probably the first researcher of Christianity to deal with this. It is also very sad that it does not occur to Christians themselves to check this.

The most important Christian dogmas

Why is it worth being a Christian? Why are Christians Christians? What is the strongest motivation to be a Christian?
These are very important questions.
If you are not a Christian, if you are not baptized, if you do not believe in the Christian idea of God, if you are not a member of the church, the Lord God will fry you in hell for an infinitely long time.
On the contrary, if you are an obedient member of the church, you will gain an advantage after death and end up in heaven. The more obedient you are to the church, the greater the reward and the better place you will get after death in heaven.
The basic motivation to be a Christian is fear, the fear of hell.
And why do you go to hell if you are not a baptized Christian? Because every person has inherited original sin. The central dogma of Christian churches is that baptism washes away original sin from a person, but not completely. If you want to be saved (that is, to go to heaven after death), you must still be dependent on the church, you must constantly cleanse yourself of original sin by receiving Christian sacraments and participating in masses.
Your duty is to save people and spread Christianity so that people may be saved: that is, to evangelize. Spread Christianity to non-Christians and make inactive, non-practicing Christians active, practicing, and, if possible, make them the greatest religious fanatics.

The church itself harshly persecuted people for owning the Bible. Why? Because the Bible is the strongest anti-Christian and anti-church book.

Unfortunately, it is a historical fact little known to the public, but the church led a harsh persecution for owning the Bible. The reason is absolutely clear and unambiguous. You will not find a more anti-Christian and anti-church book than the Bible. The Bible does not support any important Christian dogma, and that is what I am focusing on in detail.
It's crazy, but around 1850, Bibles were still being burned in Europe. It's truly unbelievable!!
Only the priest was allowed to own the Bible. And even then, only in its Latin translation (Vulgate). The Church did everything to make the Bible as inaccessible as possible. Later, the Bible was allowed to laypeople, but the translation of the Bible was forbidden. Few understood Latin.
In practice, however, the Vulgate was unusable even for people who knew Latin – the literal translation of ancient Greek is incomprehensible and ambiguous. The Vulgate is available here .
The Bible could only be read with a priest, and the priest was allowed to interpret the Bible only in accordance with the official teachings of the church, so he was forbidden to read parts of the Bible that were contrary to the teachings of the church.
The reasons for the stricter bans on the Bible were the existence of the Gnostics, the Cathars (13th century), but also the reformers. Like the Cathars, many reformers ( Unitarians, Unitarianism , reference 2 ) did not recognize the Divine Trinity or the divinity of Christ, as the Bible itself questions this teaching.
The first understandable translations of the Bible in the Catholic political environment existed practically only after the fall of the monarchy, after 1900, just before World War I.
A well-sourced Wikipedia article from which I drew.
Translations of the Bible were on the list of books banned and censored by the church, Index librorum prohibitorum ( in English ). (Just as a side note, it is interesting what enormous power the church had, that it was able to order even secular rulers to enforce the ban on books forbidden by the church, even by means of terror) .
A side note : I myself was surprised how many important personalities, scientists, American presidents, and Nobel laureates have the so-called Unitarian faith.
                      Later it turned out that the church had been unnecessarily afraid of allowing Bible translations. The church itself underestimated the potential of how it could manipulate its obedient believers. The church solved some of the inconvenient passages in the Bible with intentionally misleading translations. The basis of the Christian faith is that the church is the intermediary of God. What the priest or pastor says is sacred, it is not discussed, even if it may be the most insane nonsense, that black is white and white is black.
When people who swallow Russian propaganda can believe the most insane nonsense, how much easier is it to manipulate people into believing that the Bible is in line with church dogmas, even when the opposite is true?
                      It is tragicomic that reformed churches claim that their faith is based solely on the Bible, sola scriptura . The divine trinity, the divinity of Christ, and several other dogmas are in complete contradiction with the Bible. Many fanatical preachers passionately proclaim that they are guided literally only by the Bible – but somehow in their fanaticism they forgot that many dogmas in which Protestant churches believe have no support in the Bible and are in contradiction with it.
                      The project to digitize the oldest complete manuscript of the Bible, Codex Sinaiticus , which revealed many manipulations in the Bible, was not financed or organized by any church but by independent scientific institutions, which is paradoxical. We see how much the church resists the truth being revealed.

Christian churches have a so-called extreme interpretation of the Bible.

The Bible is the strongest anti-Christian book, which most challenges the most important Christian dogmas. All mainstream Christianity is based on an extreme interpretation of the Bible. This means that:
  • it is about tearing some passages out of context,
  • total disregard for many verses of the Bible that are in conflict with dogmas / doctrines,
  • excessive exaggeration of the importance of some verses that were taken out of context,
  • an extreme, illogical, and violent interpretation of some verses of the Bible in order to confirm certain church dogmas
What is very sad is that in the public space we do not have personalities and organizations that would have a significant impact on public opinion and draw attention to these facts. It is enough to interpret the same verse of the Bible a little differently and the church dogmas will collapse like a house of cards.
While Christian priests, pastors, and preachers in churches, and Christian media, Christian newspapers, radio, and television, which speak only of the church's interpretation of the Bible, have a huge influence on public opinion, philosophers who present critical arguments against Christianity and Christian theology are practically absent from the public space in the media.
Unfortunately, in our society, it works in such a way that the stronger one always has the "truth". And the church, in terms of its influence on public opinion, is unfortunately stronger. To hell with objective truth, when we are the stronger ones.

The Church as a tool for enslavement and control. The Church as the most sophisticated political tool of power in the history of mankind.

The media has great power. Although in the past there were no media or press, the church served as a substitute for media and the dissemination of political propaganda. Propaganda is most dangerous when it is combined with religion, when it is part of religion, that is, the highest philosophical principle. The rulers were appointed directly by the Pope. Criticizing the harsh dictatorial regime of a ruler or monarchy was considered blasphemy against God, because the ruler is also a messenger of God. A critic of the dictatorial regime was threatened that after death they would go to hell.
The church dictatorship worked better and more efficiently than the current modern dictatorial regimes because it saved a lot of financial costs through religious intimidation. You don't need so many security forces to suppress critics of a rotten regime when it's enough to scare believers with hell.
The official teaching of the church says that a believer must be obedient to the church. Whoever does not obey the church does not obey God.
Even in modern times, the church/religion is used as a weapon. This is about cultural wars and the influence of Russian propaganda in Christianity. Conservative Catholics don't need to be told twice that Christians and conservative Christian politicians are persecuted by liberals, that liberals have conspired against Christians, and that the basic purpose of a conservative Christian is to fight against the enemies of liberals. Russian propaganda doesn't have to try very hard to revive the Christian persecution complex in Christians. Every religion and political propaganda needs to work with an external enemy.
                      The church was an instrument of the ruler (although the church itself had a strong influence on the ruler).
                      What do you have to do to have the greatest power and to control people and society as much as possible? What do you need to make people as dependent as possible on your (church) product and to make people consider your product indispensable? There is nothing more effective than religion: if you are a member of the church and you are obedient to the church, you will go to heaven after death. If you are not obedient to the church and you are not in the church, you will go to hell.
The church is God's intermediary. If you do not obey the church, it means that you do not obey God and you will feel guilty that you are disobedient to God, whom you have hurt and angered.
The creation of the church system was the work of very intelligent people – or rather, the dark forces that advised the church are very intelligent.
A certain marketing expert said that no one has better marketing than the church – I agree with that – he is absolutely right.

Original sin

All Christian churches support the teaching of original sin, although the teachings of individual churches differ in detail. Without the teaching of original sin, the entire church and Christianity would be useless from the believer's point of view, because man would not need the church for salvation at all and the church would be useless.
                      The dogma of original sin is a pillar of Christianity. The fundamental problem is that the teaching of original sin has no support in the Bible, which few Christians realize. For example, Judaism does not recognize the teaching of original sin.
                       Wikipedia , the teaching on original sin. Wikipedia, the fall of man . Catechism of the Catholic Church on original sin – see also Biblical references in the catechism. The part of the Bible in which the Church refers to original sin , Genesis chapter 3 – I also recommend reading the Catholic theological commentaries in the Bible when you click on the numbers in the margin.
Genesis 3:15 is particularly important. The Hebrew " zera " means not only offspring, but also descendants and children, which I consider to be the correct translation. As for the correct interpretation of the Bible, the context is clear, the following chapter 4 of the book of Genesis continues with the description of Eve's children. That enmity between Eve and the serpent concerns only her children, not all of humanity.
Christian churches have ensured a bad translation and interpretation so that it suits the church as much as possible for its power and manipulative goals.
                       Side note : Gnostic Christians interpret this part of the Bible differently. They do not consider Yahweh, the Jewish god, to be the highest essence of existence, they do not consider him to be the true God, but only the creator of humanity, of the human body. Yahweh is a being who imprisons the human soul in the body. On the contrary, they consider the serpent to be a positive figure who tried to help people free themselves from slavery. The Gnostic interpretation of the Bible is very close and similar to the theory of Yahweh's extraterrestrial origin. The former Vatican Bible translator Mauro Biglino speaks in more detail about this philosophy.
                       Side note 2 : Christianity traditionally considered women to be inferior beings. The Catholic Church only recently granted women equal rights. This is an interpretation of the Bible that it was the woman who tempted the man to commit the original sin, which was passed on to all humanity.
                      One of the reasons why Christian churches manipulate the translation of the Bible, that the Kingdom of God is "among you" and not "in you", is that it is a passage of the Bible that would question the existence of original sin. More at the link .
                       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_the_knowledge_of_good_and_evil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve
                      The form of the current teaching on original sin in the Catholic Church probably did not develop before the 11th century. Even if a Church Father (e.g. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas) could express an opinion supporting the modern conception, it does not mean that it was a generally accepted opinion in the whole Church. Modern Christian theologians are bigoted fanatics and are not willing to examine the history of their own dogmas.

  • When the church had not yet introduced the doctrine of original sin, the church was essentially useless, unnecessary, and did not have such power. Christianity was just a kind of fashionable accessory. The reason why the church introduced Augustine's doctrine of original sin was that it brought the church enormous power. For this reason, it was tempting.
  • After introducing the doctrine of original sin, the church began to scare people with hell, and baptism and church membership became an existential problem to prevent God from frying you in hell for an infinitely long time. Baptism is not enough for complete purification from original sin. Baptism is only a minimal condition for salvation. Therefore, you become totally dependent on the church to permanently cleanse you of original sin through church rituals.
  • Contemporary Christians would consider the questioning of original sin to be such a serious heresy that they would not even consider people who do not believe in original sin to be Christians. Without original sin, baptism would be unnecessary, and what kind of church would it be that would not require baptism? Contemporary Christians would not consider the first Christians to be Christians.
  • Augustine of the 5th century was the inventor of original sin. However, it should be noted that it took at least 200 to 500 years for Augustine's teaching of original sin to become the majority opinion and official teaching.
  • Many Christians would have a mental breakdown if they learned the unpleasant truth about their religion, that the most important dogma of original sin first appeared no earlier than the 7th century. Believers were brutally deceived by the church, which conceals its own history from them.
  • Christians have created an even more despotic god than the god Yahweh of the Old Testament. A child who died before being baptized or people who are unlucky about Christianity – God will fry them in hell for an infinitely long time.
  • The teaching of original sin is the opposite of Gnosticism, i.e. a system to corrupt people as much as possible.
  • On the necessity and customs of infant baptism in the Catholic Church. Infant baptism stemmed from the doctrine of original sin.

Baptism and the necessity of baptism. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that baptism is a condition of salvation.

The basic meaning of Christianity is baptism. Through baptism, a person becomes a Christian, and it is a basic condition to get to heaven after death because it partially washes away the original sin from a person. In the case of the Catholic Church, before baptism, parents must first attend training with a Catholic priest, who emphasizes to them that they must raise the child as a Christian, later send them to religious education, and take them to church. Even during the baptismal rites, parents swear that they will raise the child and lead them to the church. The child is baptized as soon as possible after birth.
It is the same with marriage ceremonies – before the marriage, the future parents attend training with a priest who explains the prohibition of contraception, the prohibition of premarital sex, and also to raise children in a Christian way and lead them to the church. Also, during the marriage ceremony, the married couple swears that they will lead their children to the church.
                      Baptism in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, reference 2 .
                      The fact is, however, that nowhere in the Bible does it say that baptism is a condition of salvation. Baptism had a completely different meaning and significance for the first Christians than it does for contemporary ones – it had the meaning of rebirth. Few Christians realize this fact.
                      Or more precisely, the Bible only mentions it in one place, in Mark chapter 16, verse 16 : "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; but whoever does not believe will be condemned." There is very strong scientific evidence that this part was added to the Bible later and is not found in older manuscripts. Even mainstream Christian theologians, both Catholics and Protestants, acknowledge the scientific fact that the Bible was manipulated in this part. Even in the Slovak Catholic Bible, there is a marginal note that this sentence is not found in older manuscripts.
                      Whenever a church dogma was missing from the Bible, the Catholic Church added it to the Bible. This is stated in the passage on baptism or the passage on the divine trinity , the Johannine Comma .
                      Christians also worry a lot and get very depressed when a child dies before it can be baptized , because there are cases where a child dies shortly after birth. Different Christian churches have different views on this. The Catholic Church only recently, in the 21st century, under Pope Benedict XVI, recognized that such a child has at least some chance of being saved. What crazy nonsense religious fanatics deal with!!
                       Baptism , Wikipedia.
                      The form of the current teaching on baptism in the Catholic Church probably did not develop before the 11th century. Even if a Church Father (e.g. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas) could express an opinion supporting the modern conception, it does not mean that it was a generally accepted opinion in the whole church. Modern Christian theologians are bigoted fanatics and are not willing to examine the history of their own dogmas.

Afterlife: heaven, hell, purgatory

Catechism of the Catholic Church on the topic. Catechism of the afterlife. Criticism of the concept of hell Wikipedia . Hell in Christianity Wikipedia . Salvation in Christianity Wikipedia .
                      One of the most criticized aspects of individual Christian churches is their inability to agree on even the most sensitive issue: a unified teaching on the afterlife. The Bible itself expresses conflicting views on this matter. The differences among individual churches are quite significant. The Catholic Church is probably the only one that recognizes purgatory.

Martin Luther and the Baptists claim that the soul of every person is asleep after death. At the second coming of Christ, people will come to life and "good" people will be saved in heaven and "bad" people will be punished in hell. This part also has good support in the Bible.

Adventists claim that damnation does not mean hell but death not only of the body but also of the soul – meaning that the soul also perishes – this is the so-called philosophy of annihilationism . It must be said that this concept has good support in the Bible. An interesting article from Wikipedia cites many places from the Bible supporting arguments contrary to the traditional teaching about hell.

On the other hand, we also have arguments in the Bible that the soul is alive even after bodily death.
                      The Bible itself, both the Old and New Testaments, views death in a very interesting way. It is a philosophy close to materialism or agnosticism. The New Testament also stems from the Jewish tradition that after physical death, the soul is also in the grave in the afterlife in a kind of sleep. Today, such teaching seems primitive to us, but back then people believed it. This Jewish concept stems from the philosophy of ancient Egypt – we see the issue of mummies. Rulers had themselves mummified because, like Jews and Christians, they believed that the soul and body would be resurrected, meaning that both would come back to life, and the soul would return to the body under certain circumstances. The New Testament does not speak directly of salvation – it only says that believers will receive life after death as a reward, meaning that the soul will return to the body and the body will come back to life. The Catholic Church believes that after physical death, the soul will always be fully conscious, but at the second coming of Christ, the soul will return to the body. For this reason, the Catholic Church only allowed cremation in the 21st century because there was no longer enough space in cemeteries. The Catholic Church believed that cremation could complicate the return of the soul to the body that was to come back to life.
                      Not being saved and being damned, according to Biblical passages, mainly means that the soul will remain dead forever – most often such passages occur in the Bible, which the church misinterprets as hell, i.e., a state of eternal torment. In reality, the original author, by using the terms "will not live," "will not have eternal life," and "will die," means that the given soul will not receive some special VIP resurrection standard. It does not mean any divine wrath or hell as the church says.
                      Something on the topic of reincarnation and the Bible. Reincarnation and Christianity .
                      The Greek word in the Bible , krinó, translated as to judge, to condemn, or judge, also has several other meanings. The word "judge" appears very often in the Bible. In secular dictionaries, the meaning of the word "judge" is found in the last places. There is a possibility and potential to translate a large number of passages in the Bible with radically different meanings. Another important thing is that even if we agree with the meaning of "judge," which Christian churches interpret as damnation, the correct interpretation is that it does not mean automatic damnation. The meanings of the word krino are also to divide, to choose, to distinguish, to decide (on), to assess, to evaluate.
                       Notice that nowhere in the Bible is there an argument that a person is damned just because they are not a Christian. Damnation is always mentioned only in the context of a person acting contrary to general ethics (e.g., those who persecute Christians with violence 2 Thess 1:8). So what is the point of the church for people, which according to the Bible is not needed, if whether someone is a Christian does not decide salvation?
Furthermore, there are several passages in the Bible that refer to the fact that observing general ethics is enough for salvation and being a Christian is not necessary. Unfortunately, I don't have time to look for them all.
The story of the thief on the cross also confirms that non-Christians can be saved. "He (Jesus) answered him, 'Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.'" Luke 23:43
                      Even the catechism admits that most passages in the Bible that speak of damnation or salvation are only associated with the second coming of Christ.
And from several passages of the Bible, as well as from historians, we know that the first Christians believed that they would live to see the second coming of Christ, but it did not happen. Christians should also understand that in some things the Bible is wrong and is not infallible. The philosopher Celsus, as an authentic contemporary witness from the 2nd century, also claimed that Christians believed in the second coming of Christ during their lifetime.
                      This well-sourced Wikipedia article on the history of Christianity also proves that the early Christians had no reason to evangelize aggressively like modern Christians, which only confirms the theory that the early Christians did not believe that non-Christians were automatically damned, so they did not need to aggressively "save" them from damnation as modern Christianity does.
                      The current form of the teaching on the afterlife in the Catholic Church probably did not develop before the 11th century. Even if a Church Father may have expressed an opinion supporting the modern conception, it does not mean that it was a generally accepted view throughout the Church. Modern Christian theologians are narrow-minded fanatics and are unwilling to examine the history of their own dogmas.

The verses that would probably most support the church's view of salvation. It seems that they should be translated approximately well. However, one must realize the context of these words. It concerned the present moment, when Jesus himself preached to people at that time, and it concerned them . It does not concern people after the death of Christ. Not to mention that other passages negate these words (for example, the Letter to the Hebrews – Heb 2:6-9 ) . The current church tries to interpret the verses in such a way that this Biblical unbelief means not believing in the church.
Jn 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever does not believe in the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

The Gospel according to John, chapter 5 , and they will come out: those who have done good will be resurrected to life, and those who have done evil will be resurrected to condemnation.

John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

The correct interpretation of these words. The first Christians expected the second coming of Christ very soon, and Jesus' direct followers believed that they would live to see the second coming of Christ:

John 12:48 He who despises me and does not receive my words has his judge: the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.
A passage of the Bible that questions the need for evangelization:

1 Peter 4:6 For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead, that though they were judged in the flesh according to men, they might live in the spirit according to God.

First Letter to Timothy – 1 Tim 2 , who wants all people to be saved and to know the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and people – the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, as a testimony in due time.

First Letter to the Thessalonians – 1Thess 4:13–18 Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who have died, so that you do not grieve like the rest who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, then God will also bring with him those who have died through Jesus. We tell you this according to the word of the Lord: We who live and remain until the Lord's coming will not precede those who have died. For at the command, at the voice of an archangel and the sound of God's trumpet, the Lord himself will descend from heaven, and those who died in Christ will rise first. Then we who live and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will be forever with the Lord. Therefore, comfort one another with these words!
The churches greatly exaggerate the meaning of this verse and interpret it in an extreme way to support the teaching of original sin:

Letter to the Romans – Rom 5:19-21 For as by the disobedience of one man many became sinners, so by the obedience of one man many will become righteous. And the law was added so that the transgression would increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace would reign through righteousness for eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Even the official teaching of the Catholic Church recognizes that this is a manipulated and additionally added part of the Bible to the manuscripts:

The Gospel according to Mark – Mk 16, 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

The churches are exaggerating the importance of this verse and interpreting it in an extreme way. It certainly does not mean the need for fanatical evangelization, as Christians imagine it. The need for evangelization was not great, as unbelievers did not need to be "saved", because the first Christians also believed in the salvation of non-Christians.
The Gospel according to Matthew – Mt 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

The Second Coming of Christ references

Afterlife references

Unknown historical facts about the first Christians. A devastating unpleasant truth for the modern Christian.

I am following up on the shocking facts, especially from the Wikipedia article Christianity and Paganism. The article is well-sourced, seems objective, and does not appear to be one-sided. Many of the facts were new and shocking to me as well. It mainly discusses the development of early Christianity.
Before Christianity, the practice of the pagan Roman religion was mandatory (for example, regular participation in sacrifices to pagan gods), although it was not forbidden to practice any other religion in parallel. When Emperor Constantine declared Christianity the official religion, it meant the end of financial support for the pagan religion, financial support for one branch of Christianity, the obligation to participate in sacrifices to pagan gods was abolished, and a ban was issued on participating in bloody sacrifices to pagan gods. The pagan religion was not completely forbidden and flourished for an incredibly long time into the 7th century, which was a shocking fact even for me. Even in the 7th century, high-ranking officials and politicians of the Roman Empire were recorded who were not Christians but pagans. Emperor Constantine and his successors engaged in unfair practices – pagan temples apparently abounded in enormous wealth, so it sometimes happened that after the legalization of Christianity, emperors violently plundered some pagan temples to obtain money either for themselves or for the state. On the other hand, it happened that even radical Christians, who were probably not the majority, destroyed or plundered pagan temples. Christian emperors issued laws strengthening the protection of pagan temples from Christian destroyers. On the one hand, in official laws, emperors issued laws that were supposed to harshly persecute non-Christians, on the other hand, historians say that the enforceability of these laws was practically zero, as Christians were still in the minority. The persecution of pagans was often hindered by the state, and even by Catholic bishops themselves. Apostate Christians, who had abandoned Christianity, were persecuted more than pagans. Gnostics and Arian Christians were probably treated with the same tolerance as pagans.
From the 7th century, a very harsh persecution of pagans, Jews, Arian or Gnostic Christians began. A harsh Christian totalitarianism and a dark age ensued.
In 99% of cases, Christians did not demolish pagan temples but rebuilt them into Christian churches, which is an absolutely devastating fact for conservative Christians, as churches could be built on such dirty, demonic pagan sites. One pagan temple was also in the territory of present-day Israel/Palestine, which was later converted into a Christian church – it is a place where contemporary Christians believe it is the site of God's tomb or birth.
The Church Father St. Augustine, whose interpretation of Christianity has most influenced the Catholic Church, called for violence against pagans – his view at the time was probably not the majority.
(Just as a side note, Saint Augustine was a Gnostic in the past, a so-called "Manichaean" – it's very interesting why he voluntarily gave up and ended up with a more advanced teaching – the motivation might have just been money and wealth – perhaps he was promised that if he converted, he would become a bishop and have great wealth. Augustine claims that masturbation is a greater evil than adultery and prostitution. The church recognizes such amazing personalities as the greatest saints and teachers of the church).
                      For some, it may be absolutely shocking how paganism managed to stay in power for so long. From the perspective of mainstream Christians, this can cause a total mental breakdown, because Christians thought that if "primitive" pagans heard about "advanced" Christian teachings, they would not resist and would immediately convert voluntarily. In reality, it did not work out so romantically, and the local inhabitants did not accept Christians so easily.
Another reason why there were so many pagans in the Roman Empire until the 7th century is that Christianity itself was completely different from what it is today. Christians did not abuse the fact that they were favored by state power and did not feel the need to spread Christianity, evangelize, and do missions as aggressively as contemporary Christians. The first Christians were more humble; they did not radically consider their path to be the only correct one, nor did they consider their Christianity indispensable for pagans. At that time, it was not yet part of the faith that non-Christians would automatically go to hell, so Christians did not consider it necessary to "save" pagans from "damnation" through aggressive evangelization. With this article, I provide answers to historians and archaeologists to many difficult questions about certain historical facts. Because very few people know that the Bible nowhere preaches automatic damnation for pagans. A huge mystery for historians has been solved.
                      Although the article in Wikipedia does not directly state it, it is indirectly implied that it is highly probable, and it is also my personal opinion, that Christians also practiced paganism in parallel. Nowhere in the Bible do we find passages that would discourage the practice of paganism, except for eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols ( 1 Cor 8 ); the passage also criticizes the emperor's divinity (the emperor was also worshipped as a god at that time). While 1 Cor 8 states that the worship of pagan gods is not part of Christianity, on the other hand, the Apostle Paul does not forbid pagan religion except for the sacrifice of animals. Modern Christians mistakenly interpret this part of the Bible as a ban on paganism. 1 Cor 10:14–21 prohibits meat sacrificed to idols. We see that even early Roman Christianity really followed the Bible in this matter.
A side note: I also draw attention to the poor translation of the word "daimonion" in 1 Cor 10. The Slovak Catholic Bible translates it as evil spirits. English Wikipedia: The original ancient Greek word daimōn (δαίμων) had no negative connotations, [5] as it refers to a spirit or divine power. [6] The Greek concept of a daimōn appears especially in the philosophical works of Plato, where he describes the divine inspiration of Socrates.
More information at link1 , link2 , link3, link4.
                      My opinion is that early Christianity was never considered a full-fledged religion, or a substitute for a full-fledged religion. The first Christians were fully practicing Jews and at the same time professed Christianity as a superstructure. And it was similar with the pagans – the first Christians allowed pagans to practice paganism and at the same time be full members of the church. I have looked at all the passages on how the Bible perceived pagans and this theory is fully supported by the Bible. Furthermore, it should be said that the Greek word ethnos, which is translated in the Bible as "pagans", would be more accurately translated as "non-Jews", source of information Webster Concordance . This incorrect translation suits the churches, especially Eph 2:11 , which, with an incorrect translation, evokes the impression that the apostles completely rejected paganism. What is shocking is that Acts 15:28-29 explicitly states what demands the church has on pagans – practically no restrictions, no ban on practicing pagan religion except for a few exceptions. It is also fascinating that the early church was more concerned with the fact that pagans could also eat unclean food than with a complete ban on paganism for converted Christians from paganism – Acts of the Apostles – Acts 10 .
The only thing the early church dealt with was the equalization of pagans and Jews so that, in addition to full membership in the church, they could both continue to practice their religion . For mainstream Christians, this is a psychologically devastating fact and an unpleasant truth that the first Christians were completely different from today's – they were maximally tolerant of other faiths, did not condemn those "disgusting dirty" pagans, and did not consider themselves unique and superior as today's Christians consider themselves.
                      The above information is also a strong argument for my opinion on the Council of Nicaea, that the Nicene Creed was polytheistic – at least if a pagan read it, they would certainly understand it in a polytheistic sense. Link1 ,Link2 . The fact that Christianity was polytheistic in the past and that the doctrine of the Divine Trinity developed very late is a very serious theory that I write about on my website in several articles. It would require a huge amount of hard work from scientists to either confirm or refute this highly probable theory. It would be meaningful to re-examine the translations of the Church Fathers to see if their writings were not intentionally mistranslated so as not to undermine the foundations of mainstream Christianity. And to find the oldest possible manuscripts of the literary works of various early Christians and Church Fathers. The fact that the Divine Trinity in its current understanding was not discussed until the 13th century is a fact, but I have not yet found evidence that Christianity was explicitly polytheistic. Links on the topic: Link1 , Link2 , Link3 ,Link4 , Link5 , Link6 . But I have already strayed a bit from the topic.
                      The fact is that Emperor Constantine presided over the Council of Nicaea, so he had a huge influence on the formulation of the Nicene Creed. The majority view of Christians at this time was that Jesus was not considered God. However, the idea of making the Father and the Son two polytheistic gods and adding them to the list of pagan Roman gods may have been very interesting to the polytheistic pagan Emperor Constantine, which he apparently succeeded in doing. In practice, joint ritual worship of pagan and Christian gods within the same ceremony was probably very rare. It was probably common to attend ceremonies where Christian and pagan gods were worshipped separately. This means that the same person could attend purely orthodox pagan rituals in the morning and then worship the Christian gods of the Father and the Son in a church building in the afternoon. This is the philosophy of syncretism .
                      Related link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_pagans_in_the_late_Roman_Empire

Extremely rare scientific researcher Bart D. Ehrman, a critic of Christianity

I definitely recommend the author. I haven't read any of his books yet, but I plan to. Wikipedia article about him in English, German . One of his most important books . List of some of his books . It's very sad that very few of his books have been translated into Slovak or Czech. Review of his book, its critic literally succumbed to anger and despair from the unpleasant truth. Personal page .

Wars between Catholics and Protestants

Did you know that in the wars and because of the wars between Catholics and Protestants, a third of the population of present-day Germany died (which was twice as many as in WW1) and a third to half of the population of present-day Czechia?! This was Christian love of the church in practice. Modern Catholics should learn humility and not push their ideology in politics at all costs. The Islamic State, which cut off the heads of non-believers, was just weak coffee compared to what Christians did. Christianity is no more peaceful than Islam, but Islam is only about 400 years behind Christianity in development. It was common for Christian mercenaries to force people in conquered territories to convert to the Catholic or Protestant faith by force. Those who did not want to convert to the "correct" faith were often killed. Torture was also common. The reason for the large number of civilian deaths was also famines and plague epidemics caused as a result of the wars.
Christian propaganda says that Christians are the most persecuted group. In reality, Christians have persecuted themselves the most.
Source of information: a well-sourced article from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussite_Wars

Criticism of Christianity: Interesting Links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Bible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Christianity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism

Violence in Christianity, interesting links