It's Mithra's birthday

And so was all of Christian holidays!

And Islam!

Yay!

And so was most of modern society!

and the front page!

EVERYTHING IS REPOST!

see that woody.
Repost. Repost Everywhere

especially the front page!

not really, Jesus wasn't born on December 25th. he is believed to be born on september 29th 2BC. the reason we celebrate Christmas on December 25th is because back in Ancient rome they wanted to help get the majority of Rome to convert from a Pagan religion to Christian so they made a few holidays from the old religion and made them Christian religions...

btw this was extremely effective because after this, about 90% of Rome was Christian...

I'll be sure to mention this to the next priest I see.

i just posted the same comment an hour before you:c oh well good job

*fixed

Does Talos have a Christmas-type deal going on? Inner peace and the one true path be FUCKED, I want my damn Christmas gifts and eggnog

how dumb i feel now

it sucks how so many people have to be a dick about religion. I'm proud to be a christian and I want to obey gods commands by reaching other people. Although shit like this makes you question your faith and so does atheist logic.
There's few things that annoy me more than an Atheist that cant stand Christians so he has to corrupt them or bitch at them about why "it's stupid to believe in an imaginary friend that lives in the sky and grants wishes", and then begin to break down how the bible is wrong

So your sayin its ok for Christains to advertise their religion where ever they want, but atheists aren't?

yes , its all in their intentions
usually when an Atheist begins to advertise their belief unprovoked, they do it to mock christianity and religion as a whole by trying to disprove it.
where a good christian wants you to share his beliefs and practices because it leads to so many better things. Choosing to follow Jesus will make you more humble, more encouraging, more obedient, more loving, and in the long run benefit you in so many ways.
now i dont believe all atheists are malicious dickheads, but typically if they begin to rant at you about Jesus they probably are.
and not all christians who advertise Jesus intend to do what i just stated ( Baptists )

I live in the bible belt. 95% of the people I know are understanding and friendly people. Three of my closest friends are agnostic/atheist. Go fuck yourself.

**blacksinz rolled a random image posted in comment #21 at Cat defence techniques ** Please look at Horus.

I would listen

Just to piss off Gendo

you're to stubborn to log in and receive thumbs... or too lazy to make an acc.

<--- The guy who made the billboard.

GIVE ME THAT PIE MOTHERFUCKER¡¡¡

i was JUST about to say the same

also he was a teacher at 12 or somesht like jesus

im actually writing a novel about him, As of right now its titled "The First Christ"

he basically was first because he has almost everything the same as jesus back in egyptian times, i hope you know its all about the constellations actually.

But that's the symbol of Ra... -Bring on the red thumbs-

Yog-Sothoth

it's mostly because you can't really make fun of atheists since there isn't really much to make fun of them for. with Christianity, though, there is endless material to make fun of.

Dane cook didn't do a bad job.

yeah but Dane Cook sucks

It you opinion just like religion should be am I right?

no

also

<---- angry atheist

well played

i thought so i was looking through my folder and it just worked out so perfectly

I can make fun of the fact that most athiests are arrogant pricks that preach that Christianity is narrowminded, meanwhile not having ever read the bible or taken anything they've heard about Christianity more than at face value.

I disagree, I'm an atheist and I'm not an arrogant prick. I respect anyone's practice of religion as long as they don't try to push it on me (that's what she said), but you're right, I know a lot of arrogant atheist douches.

I did say most, didn't I?

I could not agree more.
As an atheist, I actually read the Bible to see what it is I was refusing to believe in. I wonder how many of the people on here can say they've done the same.

Have you read the Baghvad Gita?
If not, why aren't you a Hindu?

Have you read the Satanic Bible?
If not, why aren't you a LaVeyan Satanist ?

Have you read the Oghma Infinium?
If not, why aren't you worshipping Hermaeus Mora?

Actually, that is a very good point. But, to be perfectly honest, I don't have the time or resources to search out and read every religious book in existence. I'm 16. So instead I read the one that is most available. Perhaps, in the future, I will read the Baghvad Gita and the Oghma Infinium, but not now.

read it
realized everyone is just insane
closed book
created a religion
?????
profit

I've read some, although not all, of the Bible. To me it's just too ridiculous to believe in.

weird... my dad and I were doing that at the diner table last night

thats what she said

> They picked december 25th to mark the pagan celebration of the winter solstice.

False. Christians would not "mark" a pagan celebration of any kind. Rather the 25th of December was chosen to give Christians a significant holiday around the same time of year as the pagan solstice festival. This would ease the transition of people converting from paganism to Christianity by giving them something to celebrate during a time at which they were already accustomed to celebrating something.

> Many pagan religions mark december 25th as an important date because of the winter solstice, and many also claim that their 'prophets' were born on this date.

True. But do keep in mind that the Christian Church (not included in your statement above as it is not a pagan religion) has never claimed that Jesus Christ was born on December 25th. That was just the date chosen to commemorate the event. Not even offshoots of Christianity such as Roman Catholicism and the thousands of Protestant sects actually teach that Jesus Christ was born on December 25th.

> The christian holiday of christmas is no more christian than kwanzaa in any way other than that people pretend that it was when christ was born.

False. The celebration of Christmas, i.e. The Nativity of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, i.e. "Baby Jesus' Birthday" is indeed Christian because it commemorates the human incarnation of the God of Christians. Christians don't actually think, or pretend, that Christ was born on December 25th. If someone calls themselves "Christian" but insist on that date as the actual birth of Jesus then they need to either wise up or find themselves another religion to which to claim adherence.

Here endeth the lesson.

Oh I see so they didn't mark the date of a pagan holiday they just put a holiday on the date of a pagan holiday.

Correct. They were "marking", i.e. commemorating, the birth of their God with Christmas, they just chose the particular date for what you might call "public relations" reasons.

That was sarcasm but I suppose it doesn't really matter.

ll I can say is, good thing the Christians won the battle of Tours and were the first to colonize the Western world huh? And to think...if it wasn't for that and a few other key battle victories this we all might be following the words of a false prophet or a book of lies! Then again that's probably why God made the Christians stronger and better at killing their opponents so they could spread the word. GGG=Good Guy God!

> That was sarcasm

No shit.

> but I suppose it doesn't really matter.

Correct.

> Then again that's probably why God made the Christians stronger and better at killing their opponents so they could spread the word.

False. The muslims invaded the Christian world (aka Byzantium) in the 1400's, murdered, raped, and pillaged their way through those Christian lands, and ended up occupying Greece and committing religiously-motivated atrocities against the Greeks for 400 years, culminating in genocide against the Christian Armenians.

If God had made the Christians stronger and better at killing their opponents so that they could "spread the word" in violent fashion (in complete opposition to the teachings of Jesus Christ) then that never could have happened.

P.P.S.

Your statement that "You and the vast majority of Christians from 0 A.D. onward are guilty of more sins and atrocities in the name of a figure who preached peace and tolerance than are even believable by the worst standards" is, in and of itself, a bigoted, prejudiced, sinful statement.

The fact that a person, even if he was a Christian, committed an evil act does not automatically render every other person of his group guilty of that evil act.

What you said above is exactly the same as saying "A nigger robbed a bank, therefore all niggers are guilty of bank robbery, let's put all the fucking niggers in jail", or "So far all the terrorists have been muslims, therefore all muslims are terrorists".

If you think you've captured some sort of moral high ground here you're fucking delusional. All you've done is proven that you're every bit the bigoted piece of shit that you claim others are. Which also makes you a fucking hypocrite, btw.

There's a special place in hell reserved for hypocrites. I hope you repent of that behavior before you find out exactly what it's like there.

The fact that you are Christian does not make you a sinner. That is not what I was implying. The fact that you, just as millions before you, chose to shrug off the atrocities by saying "well the Muslims raped and killed us first" makes you a sinner. You wrote in your response that the Christians were actually weaker and could only spread the teachings of Jesus peacefully. I've never been so disgusted reading a comment in my life. There are so many instances of violent imposition of Christianity on non-believers throughout history that it makes my head spin. I have nothing against the teachings of Jesus Christ. However, organized religion has been nothing but a plague on mankind since its inception. If people want to find God and worship him/it then more power to them. If people want to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ I say bravo sir you have more self control than I. I have a problem when people try to tell me that Christianity is the "right" religion, or that Christians are the only good group since they are all so damn righteous. I am agnostic yet not religious. I do not worship any deity, as up to this point in my life, I have been given no reason to believe that I should. I acknowledge the possibility that this universe was created by something beyond my comprehension, but I'll wait till we have a chat together before I start splashing holy water on people. That being said, I think I live my life more righteously than a good percentage of so called Christians. I don't have a facade of Jesus to hide behind when I behave poorly, so I treat others in my life with respect and kindness as much as I can. I may lose my cool when I argue over organized religion, but only because I am so passionately against the idea of a "free pass" to anyone who pretends to love Jesus. I love humanity, and from this side of the argument all I can see is a group of people who are constantly causing harm to it.
That's all I really have to say.

> The fact that you are Christian does not make you a sinner.

I appreciate your recognition of that fact.

> The fact that you, just as millions before you, chose to shrug off the atrocities by saying "well the Muslims raped and killed us first" makes you a sinner

You seem to be injecting your prejudices into everything I write. I didn't say "the Roman Catholic atrocities are OK, because the muslims did it first". In fact I explicitly said that the muslim atrocities do *not* excuse the RC atrocities. You really should deal with individual people according to their individual behavior, not according to your assumptions of what they "really meant" because of their association, in your mind, with a particular group.

> You wrote in your response that the Christians were actually weaker and could only spread the teachings of Jesus peacefully.
No, I merely put forth one example of a time when that was true in order to show that your blanket statement to the contrary was false.

> However, organized religion has been nothing but a plague on mankind since its inception.
That would mean that no benefit to mankind has ever come from organized religion. I've seen too many charitable works, sometimes on a massive scale, by people acting as part of an organized religion, Christian or not, to believe that.

> That being said, I think I live my life more righteously than a good percentage of so called Christians.

Good for you. Keep it up, you'll have a better relationship with God at the end of your life, and at the beginning of your next one, than the Pope probably will.

> I am so passionately against the idea of a "free pass" to anyone who pretends to love Jesus.

Me too.

> I can see is a group of people who are constantly causing harm to it.
Don't think of people as groups. We are individuals, each responsible for our own actions, even when we choose to group ourselves together by one or more criteria.

While I can whole-heartedly agree that the teachings of Jesus Christ are a positive light in this world, my personal opinion is that mankind has put them towards more evil than good. Yes there are relief efforts and charitable works, but it is not unreasonable to believe that charity would go on in a world without religion. While I believe that some (though perhaps not all) charity would go on without organized religion, I cannot say that I believe the violence throughout history would be as great without organized religion. Yes the Europeans probably would have colonized the west regardless, but would they have felt guilt in their actions if they were not operating under the belief that God wanted them to do it? Perhaps so, perhaps not. Whether the RC Church is Christian or not, they were born of Christianity and operate as an organized religion (Christian or not), so all of the science repressing and Spanish Inquisition-ing still counts as part of my argument against organized religion as a whole. You yourself say that one does not need to concern himself with the lives of others to find God. So what then, is the purpose of organized religion? Would the world be any less righteous if every person was given access to any holy text available and allowed to find God (or not) through their own means? Why raise children and bring them to Church every Sunday if they are supposed to concern themselves with their own faith? If God truly willed it, the children would find Him anyway. Perhaps the problem with organized religion isn't the "religion" part, but rather the "organized" part.

> While I can whole-heartedly agree that the teachings of Jesus Christ are a positive light in this world, my personal opinion is that mankind has put them towards more evil than good.

Agreed on both counts.

> it is not unreasonable to believe that charity would go on in a world without religion.

Also agreed. I'm not aware of any reasonable argument to the contrary.

> I cannot say that I believe the violence throughout history would be as great without organized religion

I must wholeheartedly disagree with you there. Communism is supposedly not a religion, but look at the 100 million murdered in the name of its "god", the so-called equality of the masses. Look at Nazism, which claimed some kind of connection with established religion but was really nothing more than a secular worship of human genetics.

Religion, and perversions of religion, do give people conveniently-rationalized excuses to let their evils spew forth into the world. But without religion the same people would have found other ways to spew exactly the same evils. Six of one, a half-dozen of the other. It's not "religion", it's people.

> So what then, is the purpose of organized religion?

Could you become a master martial artist completely on your own, without the teaching, guidance, assistance, or even encouragement of any other person at any time?

Maybe. But it would be extremely difficult, take a very long time, and success would be extremely unlikely. With teachers, a dojo, and other students to guide you, encourage you, and set both good and bad examples for you the task becomes much easier and a positive outcome much more likely, no?

> Perhaps the problem with organized religion isn't the "religion" part, but rather the "organized" part.

I don't think it's either. I think it's the "free will" part. But without free will then existence would be pointless.

That paradox isn't going to be solved by you or I, except maybe in our own souls, and hopefully before we each meet God.

Correct me if I'm wrong (as if you needed permission), but did you not just do the exact same thing I am doing by condemning Nazism and communism? People are obviously more sensitive to the cases of African-Americans and Muslims these days than Nazi's and Communists. Is there anything wrong with being a National Socialist, or wanting class equality? Not inherently no, but if we judge these groups based on their actions as a whole, we typically think of mass murder first. Why then, is it unfair to judge organized religion (including but not limited to Christianity) based on the actions of its followers as a whole? Perhaps a German citizen from the 30s-40s would tell you that Hitler was like the Pope, a false idol of the Nazi party that gave them a bad name. That may be true, but good luck convincing the rest of the world that Nazi's were generally good people. There may be a difference between those who follow Christianity and those who are Christian, but how can you explain that difference to the rest of the world?

> Perhaps a German citizen from the 30s-40s would tell you that Hitler was like the Pope, a false idol of the Nazi party that gave them a bad name. That may be true, but good luck convincing the rest of the world that Nazi's were generally good people.

The difference there is that Nazi doctrine is Evil in and of itself, and those who followed it committed evils that were exactly in keeping with the teachings of their party.

Christian doctrine is *not* Evil in and of itself. Quite the opposite: Love your neighbor, even love your *enemy*, forgive, show mercy, help others. Many people who are in fact Christians still violate these ideals, and many others who only claim to be "Christians" violate them as well. But they are acting in *violation* of the religion they claim to follow and it's obvious. Their sins do not contaminate the teachings of Jesus Christ or change them in any way. "Christianity" remains Good.

> There may be a difference between those who follow Christianity and those who are Christian

There isn't. The difference is between those who are Christians by behavior and example and those who just wear a baseball hat that says "I'm a Christian" while they run around behaving otherwise.

Please note this as well: even a Christian person, who lives mostly by the teachings of Christ, will fall short sometimes. Maybe even often. But if they are a "good Christian" then they know that they are falling short and behaving in un-Christian fashion and they try to make amends for that behavior. There are, of course, no perfect Christians.

> but how can you explain that difference to the rest of the world?

Can't! Takes too long. See how long our freaking conversation is taking?? :o

But I can't abide the double standard of many (most?) who say "Christians are bad, but don't you dare say the same about muslims/jews/whatever". That's bullshit. If someone wants to make false accusations I'm going to point out the falsehood. Best I can do, I guess.

> Is there anything wrong with being a National Socialist, or wanting class equality? Not inherently no

YES. There are things *inherently* wrong with National Socialism. Its basic doctrines seek to destroy the rights of the human individual, and therefore the human individual himself or herself, in favor of creating this idea of a "Society" or "Greater Good" that supplants the individual, indeed that chews up and spits out the individual as mere fodder for The Machine.

This is Evil.

Nazism, Communism, fascism, statism, collectivism...whatever you want to call the different flavors of it...it's all inherently Evil because it's all Anti-Human-Individual.

Only systems of government/economics/etc. that preserve and defend the rights of the human individual can even begin to claim that they are anything even remotely "good".

> Why then, is it unfair to judge organized religion (including but not limited to Christianity) based on the actions of its followers as a whole?

Because the religion itself is the teachings/theology/ideals of that religion, not the actions of people who happen to wear a cross, a star of david, or a crescent around their necks.

If I put a sign on my front door that said "Muslim Mosque of Boston", and proceeded to teach that Islam is the worship of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who wants his followers to murder niggers, arabs, and hipsters, would that make Islam a "bad" religion?

No, because that's not Islam, and the sign on my door will never change that fact.

Same goes for a televangelist who spews sinful love of money and material wealth to his viewers while claiming that his foolishness is "the message of Jesus Christ". Same goes for the pope of Rome who claims we're all guilty of "original sin". All preposterous, none of it even remotely Christian. What their TV commercials or papal encyclicals claim is irrelevant, their teachings are *not* Christian.

I could just as easily make a much more condemning argument for the sinfulness of capitalism! Capitalist societies breed greed and selfishness because those who covet thy neighbor's goods the most, those who are filled with greed, and those who are willing to lie cheat and steal are rewarded with supremacy! Capitalist societies enable freedom of choice just as much as Communism *actually* produces equality...i.e. it doesn't. Look at how Capitalism around the world has driven millions to slavery and tell me again that it produces freedom. Hah! Tell that to a Nike employee making a dollar a day who was forced to leave school to work. We take for granted the gift that we have by not having to worry about that fate. We don't have to worry about this because of child labor laws and minimum wage, both socialist ideas. Do you think that if those laws weren't in place, the constant demands of a Capitalist society for cheaper and cheaper goods wouldn't drive us to the same place?

Now in a sense I am merely playing devil's advocate here, since I reap the benefits of a Capitalist society every day. However, in the back of my mind I must deal with the fact that for every one BobbyMcFerrin living comfortably in the US, there are 10 more in undeveloped areas that are raped by Capitalism every single day to maintain my quality of life. Since there isn't much I can exactly do about it as a whole, I will try to live a charitable life and do what I can do. However, my point is that Capitalism in practice is far from ideally Christian. If a powerful figure came along and instituted Socialism, and you saw the widespread poverty in your country evaporate overnight, you too would join the man's cause. Socialism itself does bar individualism. Socialists can still live how they like, marry who they want, and become anything. I restate then, that not all Nazi's were bad, but that the Nazi party as a whole was bad. I have the same view of organized religion.

> However, in the back of my mind I must deal with the fact that for every one BobbyMcFerrin living comfortably in the US, there are 10 more in undeveloped areas that are raped by Capitalism every single day to maintain my quality of life.

NO. Economic "rape"...force, fraud, cheating, lying, stealing...*none* of that is allowed under Capitalism. Those people are not being raped by Capitalism. They are being raped by a *lack* of Capitalism. In the U.S. as well as in other countries. Socialism, communism, anarchy, statism, collectivism...those are the systems that use, or allow, force against the individual. Capitalism does not.

What you're having to deal with in the back of your mind is both the fact of that rape itself and the lie of calling that rape "Capitalism". The lie told by people who want to give you a straw man to rail against so that you won't notice who the real culprit is...indeed so that you'll attack the potential economic savior of those victims (Capitalism) and support their economic attackers (force/fraud/socialism/communism/etc.).

It's the same bait-and-switch used by those who paint homosexuals as evil perverts who threaten "our" way of life, who paint people of African descent as a sub-human cancer in society, who paint Christians as closed-minded religious freaks.

Don't...drink...that...poison. Killian is lying to you. Understand the true nature of the problem, then at least you can understand who's really raping you and all the other victims, and maybe you can actually start implementing solutions to the evils that they cause by using force against the rest of us.

> I could just as easily make a much more condemning argument for the sinfulness of capitalism! Capitalist societies breed greed and selfishness...those who are willing to lie cheat and steal are rewarded with supremacy!

No sir. In a society that adheres to Capitalist principles, individual property rights reign supreme. No one may take, by force or fraud, anything that belongs to anyone else. You may trade for it, or persuade them to give it to you voluntarily out of the goodness of their hearts. You may *not* lie, cheat, or steal to get it.

That's the difference between communism and Capitalism. The basic foundation of communism/socialism/facism/collectivism is that the individual human person has no rights whatsoever. The basic foundation of Capitalism is that every human individual has exactly the same rights and that those rights must be upheld.

> Look at how Capitalism around the world has driven millions to slavery and tell me again that it produces freedom.

Slavery? Slavery, a form of coercive theft, is not allowed under Capitalism. Any society that allows it is not Capitalist. I suggest you read "The Capitalist Manifesto" by Andrew Berstein.

> Tell that to a Nike employee making a dollar a day who was forced to leave school to work.

People came to a school and forcibly extracted children from it, putting them to work in a Nike factory?? Grab your guns, Bobby, I'll meet you there and we'll rescue them.

However I expect that they were not forced. Unfortunate circumstances gave them a choice: work for $1 a day or die of starvation. A horrible choice. But at least that Nike factory is there to offer it.

Let's you and I figure out how to offer a better choice to those children, without using force against Nike or anyone else. That would make us both Good Christians and Good Capitalists. It would make us*terrible* socialists, though, because we'd be respecting property rights.

Read my responses from the bottom up, please.

Also to any of the 5 people who are thumbing me down simply for responding why don't you man the fuck up and present a counter-argument of your own? If you can't formulate an argument to the contrary you shouldn't be judging the merit of my arguments. It would be one thing if I was making incoherent babbling responses but I assure you I am one of the most well educated people you will ever have the displeasure of arguing with, so why not give me a try? Fucking pussies.

Can you please give me one example of a man-made injustice that does not involve the exploitation of one group/person by another group/person? Is that not the definition of injustice?
Now, I reiterate that unregulated Capitalism makes those who exploit others the wealthiest of all. If you don't have to give something fair to get what you want, its a lot easier to accumulate wealth. The capitalism of slavery is the ultimatum that is offered to each slave. The slave owner will trade the slaves life for labor. No money is exchanged but the slave is given the choice (pff) to live and work or die. Those buying the products are motivated by lower prices, and those selling the products know that their profit will increase as expenses decrease. If there was no government around to tell people that slavery was bad, then what do you think would keep people from owning slaves? Good will? Sorry no. In a capitalist world try owning a cotton farm in 1850 while paying your employees a fair wage. You'd be run out of business so fast it would make your head spin. You couldn't compete because you were considerate of human rights. Yeah Jesus would be really happy about that. There is a reason that this country has imposed restrictions on companies and labor laws. The reason is that capitalism would step all over human rights if they didn't. You literally cannot argue with that. You may think you can but I assure you you are wrong. You could not be more wrong if you made a false statement deliberately with the knowledge that it was false. The government has to be there to impose restrictions to protect human rights from capitalism. Look at the industrial revolution. Look at south-east asia. Look at slavery throughout history. Fucking look outside a capitalism textbook two inches and pay attention to reality. Unrestricted capitalism. Breeds. Greed. A mix of capitalist structure with socialist restrictions (USA) is ideal. If you don't get it by now you never will.

Nike, for example, works for its investors, and its bottom line, not for human rights. If you'd ever taken an economics class you'd know that the optimal output for a company to make the highest profit changes only when the price of a resource it needs to make a product changes. Since foreign labor is basically free to them, they will exploit it until it starts hurting their bottom line. The kids working in those factories take the jobs because it’s all they can get. I don't think they'd complain if Nike paid them $10 an hour... but you know what? Nike and many other companies don't do that because why the fuck would they spend extra money if no government threatened to shut them down if they didn't. So go ahead and cry out that it is a violation of human rights to force Nike to pay their workers. Say it’s more humane to allow people to make “choices” than to force artificial wage minimums. Go ahead and tell me that if those kids are taking the jobs then it must have been a fair capitalist transaction: one day’s work for 1 dollar. I hope you at least feel guilty while you’re typing it.

You've got to be kidding me. Ok in a perfect capitalist world no one is *allowed* to lie cheat or steal. No one *forces* people to work for basically nothing. Slavery is not *allowed* in capitalist countries.

Let's put on our big boy thinking caps: if none of these things are allowed then why do they happen? Forget about the Capitalist Manifesto, if we're going to talk about Capitalism, I'm going to talk about the Wealth of Nations. The only rule that Capitalism has is that there are no rules. Laissez-faire literally means "to let do". Adam Smith postulated that the most successful way to run an economy was to do nothing at all and let people settle their business transactions themselves. So all that crap about not "allowing" certain things is exactly that...crap. Capitalism pits man against man in a battle of both wits and determination. For one man to win, another MUST lose. Not every transaction has a winner and a loser, but for one to become wealthy, another must become poor. You said yourself that some people are forced to choose between working for their capitalist masters or death. But hey! It’s still a choice right? But if it’s a choice between socialism or death, then it’s not a choice and it’s evil. Make up your mind.

In fact here's a spectacular example of just such a solution: Muhammad Yunus' Grameen Bank. Making micro-loans to the destitute, enabling them to establish viable credit upon which to increase their own economic activity, making their work more valuable to them, to those who trade with them, and to the bank which initiated the loan program.

As far as I know, no force or fraud was used in establishing this wildly successful system that has allowed thousands...if not more?...to lift themselves out of extreme poverty with their own hard work and the voluntary, uncoerced efforts of a magnanimous genius and his colleagues.

*That's* Capitalism for you, and I hope one day I can shake Muhammad Yunus' hand and thank him for his wonderful contribution to the society of human beings.

To implement the same "solution", socialism would force the bank to make loans to their tools, the "poor"...demand *more* "loans" when the initial loans weren't paid back...blame the bank for not being "generous" enough when the program failed...then blame "Capitalism" when the bank itself failed because it ran out of money.

In other words...*exactly* what the U.S. Congress has done to America, and what statists all over the world do to "We The People" every chance they get.

Capitalism is the only solution to these problems. I hope one day a significant number of the world's population crawl out from under our respective governments and implement actual Capitalism.

> In 1099 the Christians overtook Jerusalem as a result of the First Crusade
False. Those weren't Christians, those were Roman Catholics, the same Roman Catholics who marauded through Byzantium on their way to Jerusalem and slaughtered Christians. You're fucking delusional.

> and slaughtered every Muslim man woman and child they could find.
Not an attempt to justify slaughter by the crusaders, but the Roman Catholic crusaders went to Jerusalem because the muslims had invaded it, slaughtering every Roman Catholic and Christian man, woman, and child they could find.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but it's fucking delusional to think that the Catholics just up and decided to go murder people thousands of miles away for no reason.

> We could argue all day about who committed more violent atrocities during the middle ages in Europe
Correct.

> You and the vast majority of Christians from 0 A.D. onward are guilty of more sins and atrocities in the name of a figure who preached peace and tolerance
False. Anyone who behaves in that fashion is not a follower of Jesus Christ, and hence not a Christian. Christianity is a religion of Peace.

> If Jesus existed and preached as the Bible claims he did, he would be absolutely mortified at how his teachings had been twisted contorted and raped into a disgusting justification to commit evil acts.

Correct.

> I hope you don't believe in hell friend because if you do you'll be joining quite a few others when you finally check out.

What evil have I unrepentantly committed, other than the horrible sin of disagreeing with you, that would cause me to end up in hell? More importantly, what evidence could you possibly have that I deserve hell, given that the only information you have about me is that I disagree with you?

P.S. The idea that one's belief in something controls the existence of that thing is absolutely fucking delusional.

> First of all Roman Catholicism is a sect of Christianity

False. Roman Catholicism claims to be "Christian", but its fundamental teachings (e.g. "Original Sin") have become so corrupted that it can no longer be considered Christian by any reasonable person who understands the teachings of the Christian Church as they existed for the first thousand years after Christ (and still exist). "Catholics are Christian" is just RC propaganda.

> But in any event, accepting God and believing in Jesus does not grant a waiver to anyone to do whatever they want. I think we agree on that.

Yes, we definitely agree on that.

> throughout history, Christians have preached that accepting Jesus as the lord and savior is the only way to live a righteous life

I think you're suffering from a bad case of Kindergarten Kristianty propaganda. A person can indeed live a righteous life without being a Christian and that has been acknowledged by Christian saints and theologians for over 2,000 years. Christians believe that the only way to be Saved, i.e. to "go to heaven", is through Jesus Christ. But that is a very diferent thing. And it doesn't mean that all non-Christians will burn in hell, because God has ways of achieving a person's salvation that we know nothing about.

The Christian attitude toward who will be saved and who won't is: "I will follow the teachings of Christ to the best of my ability, repent of my sins when I fall short, and leave the salvation of the rest of humanity to God. I have enough to worry about in saving my own soul".

> According to Christianity, the whole world would then be barred from heaven since they had never heard of Jesus Christ.

No, that's a simplistic assumption made by people, including many Christians unfortunately, who insist on chaining God to worldly rules and logic. A sinful attitude in and of itself. It's not a Christian idea.

Look into the theology of the Orthodox Christian Church. I think you'll be surprised.

>No, that's a simplistic assumption made by people, including many Christians unfortunately, who insist on chaining God to worldly rules and logic. A sinful attitude in and of itself. It's not a Christian idea.

Isn't that exactly my point? If many Christians believe something and act according to that belief, then they are capable of causing harm on a global scale. If people have enough to worry about in saving their own soul, then how has Christianity spread? The fact of the matter is, a lot of bad things have happened due to "Christians" acting "in the name of God". What you explained to me sounds a lot like the teachings of Jesus Christ, upon which Christianity is supposedly based. This then leads me to believe that we are arguing over two different things that share the same name. I get the feeling you are arguing as if the word "Christianity" means the religion whose followers adhere to the teachings of Jesus Christ. I however am arguing as if the followers of "Christianity" act as they have been documented and observed to act. I hate to compare religion to communism but it seems as though both are desirable in theory until actually applied on mankind. Christianity as you describe it would be just what the world needs and could make gigantic leaps forward in how we treat each other on this planet. However the way I look at it Christianity has had 2000 years, and I haven't seen any leaps yet. I've seen science and technology repressed for nearly a millennium and countless evil men cry GOD! as they cut off someone's head. I accused you, perhaps rashly, of being a sinner because I was offended at your initial defense of "Christian" wrongdoing with the Muslim argument, but since you have backed off of that I will as well. You seem like a level-headed Christian, which is fantastic, but unfortunately you seem to be outnumbered.

> You seem like a level-headed Christian, which is fantastic, but unfortunately you seem to be outnumbered.

And you seem to be an articulate nigger, which is fantastic, but unfortunately you seem to be outnumbered. Still, you are a credit to your race, even though being black is a bad thing in and of itself you seem to be one of the few niggers who has been able to rise above that unfortunate condition.

You really must learn to judge the behavior of individuals rather than judging individuals according to the associations that you make between them in your own mind and deciding that all members of the group are guilty until proven innocent.

I'm not trying to throw your conciliatory turn back into your face, I'm just trying to make the point that I see as most important "while the iron is hot".

You're right, many people falsely claiming to be Christians, and many people who are otherwise Christian but fall away from Christ's teachings at one time or another, commit great evils. That doesn't make Christianity evil, nor does it make any other person who has not committed evil guilty of the wrongdoings of another.

> I get the feeling you are arguing as if the word "Christianity" means the religion whose followers adhere to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

There is nothing else it could rightfully mean.

> I however am arguing as if the followers of "Christianity" act as they have been documented and observed to act.

You don't see the inherent fallacy of that thinking?

How about this: "Islam is a religion of murderous violence, terrorism, and religious oppression."

True statement? Yes, of course...because I am arguing as if the followers of "Islam" act as they have been documented and observed to act.

I suspect that I'd never be allowed to get away with my statement by most people in the modern world. Why are you asking to be allowed to get away with yours?

back to the original argument, Mithras was born on December 25th, which indeed was chosen by Christianity to ease the conversion from pagan religions to Christianity. Same with Easter, it's not christian at all, its named after the pagan religious festival celebrating Eostre. There is literally nothing unique about the "Godliness" of Jesus, its all been repeated in different religions up to thousands of years before Jesus, they just don't get talked about because Christians either killed the believers or made it illegal to believe those religious once they controlled Rome.

The point about the Crusades is a moot point because essentially it is still going on. E.G. Who rightfully controls Israel? Atrocities have been committed on both sides for thousands of years and will continue for thousands of years. However If Christians really were peaceful they never would have retaliated against the Muslims.

oscartg I feel like for the most part you know what you're talking about but it seems to me you have about 0 real world experience. Saying the Roman Catholic Church is not Christian is stupid, they were the original Christians. After Jesus died, Christians (after a couple hundred years) went to Rome, tried to burn it down and founded the Church. The Church then looked at all the written gospels and decided which were going to go into the Bible and then printed those four gospels and thus the bible was created. You can't say the Church isn't Christian, they created Christianity almost more than Jesus did. They were the first group to ever officially say that Jesus actually was the Son of God.

There are also no true Christians, yourself included. A true Christian follows all the teachings of Christ, which I can guarantee you, and no one besides Christ himself, have ever been able to do successfully. Just reading this argument I can tell that you are prideful, judgemental, and probably guilty of Wrath as well. That's two deadly sins, and Jesus said not to judge I believe.

Dude, you're *badly* misinformed about Christmas, Pascha (which the pseudo-Christians insist on calling "Easter" for some reason), who the Original Christians were...all of it, really, except the part that there are no "true Christians". If by "true" you mean "perfect" then you're absolutely right, no human but Christ has ever been perfect. But that's not what I would mean by "true Christian", of course.

I don't have the time or inclination to correct the rest of your Kindergarten Kristianity point-by-point, and I doubt you'd open your mind to it anyway, so since this thread is well buried-by now and no one else is likely to be corrupted by your ravings I won't bother.

P.S.
The "god" of Communism is the so-called "equality" they claim to worship. It's complete bullshit of course. But Communism is a religion with a god just like all the others. They just don't consider their god a supernatural entity. But the pathology is the same as with any false religion.

Also, Communism is nothing like Christianity. You've swallowed the Commie Kool Aid on that one. Jesus Christ never forced anyone to give to others, never imprisoned anyone for not giving enough "charity". He merely gave us His example and His teachings and said "do this if you want to be close to God".

Communism attempts to force itself on the whole world, Jesus Christ never did any such thing.

You need to renew your thorazine prescription. Quick. And stop watching the History Channel.

>implies my knowledge of Christianity is incorrect.
>supplies no counter points or any proof that what I'm saying is wrong.
>mfw I was raised as a catholic, then as a congregationalist, then an anglican, then as a jew as my parents changed religions because they're idiots.

I know more about this shit than you do dude. Kindergarten Kristianity my ass. I probably have the most open mind of anyone you've ever met but it looks to me that you don't really know what you're talking about and don't like to admit when you're wrong. No worries, I hate to admit it too but I'll back down when I'm wrong.

>Says I'm an idiot.
>Everything you said about communism.

It's like you've never read a real live book about communism or anything. Literally every single thing you wrote down is wrong, I'm astounded. You're the one who's swallowed the Kool-Aid man. You actually think Russia and China are communist countries. That's wrong, they aren't. They call themselves communist but they have nothing in common with an actual communist country. There are no communist countries.

True communism doesn't force itself upon anyone, its a choice people can freely make without any repercussions one way or the other, whereas Jesus said, "unless you believe that I Am who I claim to be, you will die in your sins." (quote from bible) So Jesus said if you don't believe in me and do as I say you will die and go to hell, so Jesus forced himself upon more people than any true commies did and don't say that's not forcing himself upon them, that's definitely forcing. So I guess Jesus is "worse" than communism. Interesting.

> I was raised as a catholic, then as a congregationalist, then an anglican, then as a jew

You're just proving my point, Skizziks. I'm sure you know a shit-ton about the doctrine and theology of those perversions of Christ's teachings. But your blatherings above prove that you don't know anything about actual Christianity. And I have neither the time nor the inclination to correct you.

If you're actually interested in learning the difference between Christianity and those other religions then answer my question below, maybe we can converse about it. If not then don't bother and I won't either:

What Is Original Sin, and is it a Christian belief?

> I have neither the time nor the inclination to correct you.
> answer my question below
Inconsistent argument detected, either way I'm not going to bother answering your question because no matter what I say you are going either say I am wrong or continue to say I don't know what I'm talking about, so it's pointless to answer anything you ask me.

However, and yes this is hypocritical of me, I was wondering if you could answer a question of mine. Could you actually point out a single thing I said that is wrong? Where in all that blathering did I actually say something untrue and not just something you don't personally agree with?

Also having read the bible I'll have to put in my two cents, Jesus' arguments were rather flat, one-dimensional, and not actually a good moral code to live by. But, that's just like, my opinion man. Also, dat picture.

> Could you actually point out a single thing I said that is wrong? Where in all that blathering did I actually say something untrue and not just something you don't personally agree with?

You said "True communism doesn't force itself upon anyone, its a choice people can freely make without any repercussions one way or the other"

That is an incredible load of extremely untrue shit.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", says Communism's father, Karl Marx.

But who determines your ability? Who determines my need? What if you don't want to "give" what you've earned over to my claim of needing it? As a "good communist" I'll just say "you have every right to keep your individual property, earned by your own work, I'll get my needs met elsewhere from people who freely chose to give me what I need"?

Buuulll-shiiiiit. That would make me a Christian (albeit a lazy one), not a communist. Communism, especially so-called "ideal" communism, says you have no right to the product of your own work. Your work product, your property, belongs to the "society".

Of course, a society is an abstract grouping of people. A society doesn't eat and drink, doesn't fill one belly with the fruits of someone's labor. Only individual people can do that.

So, under communism, everyone else eats the lunch that you've earned. And if you dare to withold the value created by your ability, communism preaches that this is a sin, and that the rest of society has the right to come take it to meet their needs.

"True communism is a choice." That was just one example of your blathering that was completely untrue.

>>> I have neither the time nor the inclination to correct you.
>> answer my question below
>Inconsistent argument detected,

I apologize for reconsidering my conviction to refrain from wasting my time by trying to help you find your way out from that dense fog of falsehood in which you are lost. Here, let me correct that minor inconsistency now...

goddammit you've misunderstood what I've said yet again.

That's all true, I literally agree with everything you've said regarding communism once it's been established, that is all correct and that is why I don't support it. However you've misinterpreted how it is established, once it is established it essentially forces itself upon the people who are a part of it, but the thing is, they have all voluntarily joined a communist government. They all willingly joined the communist nation, they were not forced to join. That is one of the reasons that none of the current "communist" countries nowadays are not really communists.

tl;dr you're mostly right but wrong where it counts. You have yet to stay with one consistent thread of reasoning throughout this whole argument and are wrong in pretty much every way that counts. Good day sir. I look forward to your next half-baked response.

had to.

Anyways, while I disagree somewhat with your delivery I think you make an interesting point that I too have been trying to make. You didn't say it explicitly, but it is incredibly contradictory for oscartg to claim that Christianity should not be judged on its false followers, and then turn around and condemn Communist countries for their poor treatment of humanity. I pointed out in a previous post how Socialism is not inherently evil, and I think many of the same principles apply to Communism. I also made the point that Capitalism could be painted just as poorly as Communism depending on the artist. But in any event, I have to disagree with your statement that Communism is brought about by free choice. That is not to say, however, that it is forced either. Rather, the Communist Manifesto claims (in my opinion erroneously and unjustifiably) that Communism will just happen and there is nothing we can do to stop it. Being himself a "fan" of Communism, Karl Marx did include lines intended to hasten the coming of Communism, but he himself would tell you that if it doesn't happen today, it will happen tomorrow. Karl Marx saw the coming of Communism as more of a genetic inevitability based on his (once again in my opinion false) beliefs about human nature. It brings up an interesting point I think, if one draws a line between the inevitable "coming" of Communism and the Christian idea that God can simultaneously allow freedom of choice while still knowing and in a sense determining the outcome of every situation (thank you John Milton). Is it still freedom of choice if it was all part of God's plan, or similarly would Communism be a "choice"? Christians would say yes to part one because God works in ways we cannot comprehend. But can the same argument be applied to Communism? If you don't believe that argument for either case, then Communism cannot be a choice. If you do, then you perhaps believe in God? Hmmmmmmm....Logical Dilemma. Trollface.jpg

For some reason it won't let me reply to your comment below so here we are...

Your view of christianity seems to be extremely Calvinist. I would say most Christians don't believe that God has an exact predetermined path for everyone and that there is no freedom of choice. Most Christians say that God has a plan for them but they are free to follow that path or stray from it as they choose.

Of course I do not believe Communism is inevitable. Just as I don't believe any part of Christianity is inevitable or that there is no freedom of choice. For a reference I would direct you to The Matrix.

I would agree that Marx's Manifesto is a scripture of communism but I would say it is followed about as much as the Bible is, which is to say, not at all.

The point is that nothing is inevitable, if life was inevitable it would be rather boring wouldn't it?

Agreed and as I said my argument would be moot if you considered the manifesto as anything other than pure truth.

>Applying logic to God and Religion.
ohshitmotherfuckerwhatareyoudoing.m4a
>Comparing the coming of communism and the coming of christianity.
niggayoudumb.png

Although to be fair arguing with someone like oscartg who says,

"Your statement that 'You and the vast majority of Christians from 0 A.D. onward are guilty of more sins and atrocities in the name of a figure who preached peace and tolerance than are even believable by the worst standards' is, in and of itself, a bigoted, prejudiced, sinful statement...If you think you've captured some sort of moral high ground here you're fucking delusional. All you've done is proven that you're every bit the bigoted piece of shit that you claim others are. Which also makes you a fucking hypocrite, btw.
There's a special place in hell reserved for hypocrites. I hope you repent of that behavior before you find out exactly what it's like there."

Means that not only will he never take any argument you pose seriously because he believes you are intrinsically inferior to him because you don't believe what he believes and therefore you are going to hell, but you will never get him to reason logically with you because he can't reason logically according to his own belief system. If you are different, you are wrong.

This is why I devoted my life to science, it is (generally) unbiased, rational, logical, and provable (aggrippa's trilemma excluded of course.).

> >Comparing the coming of communism and the coming of christianity.

Did you read what I wrote?
1. Karl Marx claims that communism is inevitable.
2. Christians believe that every situation past and future can be seen by God.
2.a. According to Christianity, everything that ever has happened or will happen is already determined if God can see it.
3. God gave man free will because he apparently felt that it was a waste for man to worship him if he had to. God knew full well what would happen in Genesis. He gave Adam and Eve free will so that they would sin, he could banish them, and mankind could henceforth be free to accept or deny Him.
4. Did Adam and Eve truly have free will if God planned it out that way? Does anyone have free will if we are all acting according to God's plan?
5. Christians say yes because God works in ways that are incomprehensible to us. We cannot understand His concept of time as it is irreconcilable with our own.
6. Do you deny this justification?
If yes:
6.a. Nothing that is already determined or inevitable can involve freedom of choice.
6.a.1. Communism is not a choice
If no:
6.b. You believe in a being with powers incomprehensible to us (God).

I am not comparing the coming of communism with the "coming" of Christianity. Christianity is already here and that is irrelevant. I am talking about the nature of freedom of choice. The coming of anything and everything in the future involves the question of whether it was fated or chosen, not just Christianity.

I am also making a base assumption at the beginning of my argument that treats the Communist Manifesto as a Bible of communism. If you disagree with Karl Marx' idea that communism is inevitable then my argument is moot. However just as one looks to the Bible when discussing what "Christians" do or do not believe, I see no better common basis than to look to the Manifesto as the "scripture" of communism. I am not calling it a holy book but rather a reference document.

I don't know how this guy knows this... But just for you to know.

Christmas was a date that the Christians put as Jesus birthday. Idk why though.

No one knows what date he was actually born. Because the calender was different back then.

I WILL NEVER STOP QUIBEING!

Everyday I'm quibeing

I dont think you're in a position to be saying that since you havent been friends with him for years.

I believe he's saying that what he said to his friend was something along the lines of "We've been friends for years for reasons other than our religion."

Thank you for the correction, i meant to say we have been friends for years

Had to read it a couple times to understand my self. It happens. No biggie.

yes that would make more sense.

Ummmm, yes i have? I said that in my original comment?

it says that you recently had a friend say that he was athiest. then it says right after, that you havent been friends for years. and to the person who disliked my comment I have friends of all religions and I dont discriminate.

OOOOOOHHHHH sorry bro, didn't read it, my bad! Apologies friend

Its all good. Senkaru kind of clarified everything.

Religion does get 'bashed' in public. Look up Richard Dawkins and his bus campaign.

First off, silly little Anon, I did exaggerate bit much.
I personally as an Atheist do not wake up and go through the day hating people who practice their religion. I hold a strong belief that may not be common on the internet, but I treat everybody the same, regardless of race, religion, gender, ect. So don't tell me what I know please. Therefore, the only reason I would prove to someone that their faith is a foolish one is if they (a. try to shove it down mine or anyone who does not want it's throat, or (b. if they try to attack me with their religion.
Other than that, I believe there is no reason why everyone can't just get along, live the lives they want to live it as long as it does not intrude on others lives.

lol wow, why would you thumb that comment down..

I love God, and Jesus, and Budda, and Allah, and all those guys.

It's their fan clubs I can't stand!

I'm catholic and I hate Christians... even though people say its the same thing.

And I believe in god... but what I don't believe is some rules that the catholic church made up. Like if you sin you'll go to hell or that. Its a lie. Christ died for our sins... and when they killed him, after he die he said, don't punish them god. They don't know what they are doing.. God then forgive all the sinners. And if you sin and you regret it with heart he will forgive you.

I'm christian and I totally know that feel. Kids are starving in third-world countries while the pope live in a mansion made of gold. That's fucked up.

Ummm.... it's more fucked up that we don't do nothing about the starving kids. Have you done anything to help them?

And they starve cause all the governments from Africa is fully corrupted. And they take the money from themselves.

I have actually, invisiblechildren . com I've done reports and shared everything I know on the subjects with my friends, and the church I go to has done several relief effort projects. (I go to a small church that uses the money from offerings go straight to those in need)

My school has done a lot for invisible children. Every year we have a representitive from Africa come, and I always donate all the money I have on me.

That's good bro. God bless you, man. Everything that you do, will give you something in return. You know what I mean?