Good for you. As you should. Now my rejoinder is to simply substitute "evolution" for "Christianity", and trust that you understand the point I am making. Like so:
That the events took place I have no doubt. That they are representative ofChristianityevolution I have every doubt.
These and their fruits are all antithetical to Christianity, including innocent bloodshed.
I could make a rather crass observation at this point, but I will simply reiterate that you are conveniently defining anything personally offensive to you as being "antithetical to Christianity". Very well - communism is antithetical to evolutionary theory. Obviously so - as Condorman has pointed out, "survival of the fittest" is not in accord with communist ideology.
I have now disclaimed this connection that you have labored to establish, and done so in exactly the same manner with which you have hand-waved away some of the bloodier portions of Christian history. If your disclaimer is valid, mine must be also, since it's identical in form and substance.
Could you please explain to me how objective truth can exist indepently from a source?
I don't know what that means. Either facts exist independently of us, or they do not. Does the factual truth of a historical event depend upon the person relating it to you? If I tell you that in August of 1945, an atomic bomb was detonated over Japan, would me being a communist make that statement false? If I persuade you that I'm a devout Christian, and then tell you that the Moon exploded three years ago, does the fact that I am a devout Christian make my claim true?
Why did you stretch my words as if to say I believe there is no such thing?
I don't have to "stretch" your words - that's exactly what you said. You said that truth depends on the source. Thus, truth is subjective, and not objectively verifiable. I admit, I was rather surprised to see you take such a position, but that's pretty much where you've planted your flag for the moment. I wouldn't blame you for reconsidering, however.
No sir. You've diverted the subject from the distinction between evolutionism and creationism. Evolutionism has communism as a kin ideology. What does creationism have? If you think Christianity was born of a need to futher express creationism . . . well, so much for your reliability as a source for facts.
Speaking of facts and sources for facts, you are absolutely right in mainting that fact is a fact no matter who says it. But the person saying the fact is not the same thing as the "source" of the fact. Facts do not depend on the source of the one repeating them for their basis objective reality.
Your attempt to equate "Christianity" with every attendant manifestation that happens to take up the word makes you an unreliable source. Evolutionism and communism, by vitue of Marx's delight in Darwin's work, makes it easy to associate the two. In fact the association is clean and tight. They don't even try to hide it like you do.