Political opinions

The person who, no matter what his/her username is, will always be called 'Tiel' wrote:

That good?

Yes.

I do wonder what Viscount Nelson is doing on the Normandy SR2.

CoalMiningAlchemist wrote:

but it's not racism

It is racism.

And yes, hypercubeical dimensions for politics.

Well if it's racism we are all racists (and it is , something to think about ). Though that one is reasoned eventually you may find yourself hating them for no reason. It doesn't prevent me from ... disliking them and I believe so does you .

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=0.12&soc=0.87
as you can see, i don't give a s**t about politics, please stop messin up mah offtopic section.

Keon wrote:

CoalMiningAlchemist wrote:

but it's not racism

It is racism.

And yes, hypercubeical dimensions for politics.

technically acknowledging people have colored skin is racism

and it's not racist if you're judging them on religion

which I am


EDIT: I dampened my libertarian views a bit and got this:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=6.25&soc=3.69

CoalMiningAlchemist wrote:

Keon wrote:

CoalMiningAlchemist wrote:

but it's not racism

It is racism.

And yes, hypercubeical dimensions for politics.

technically acknowledging people have colored skin is racism

and it's not racist if you're judging them on religion

which I am


EDIT: I dampened my libertarian views a bit and got this:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=6.25&soc=3.69

How is discrimination on the basis of religion better than discrimination on the basis of skin color?

First of all, you can change it, and is saying the branch dividians were insane bigoted?

that and only one is right

also I didn't say it was, It just makes me sick when judging anything is labeled racism

CoalMiningAlchemist wrote:

First of all, you can change it, and is saying the branch dividians were insane bigoted?

that and only one is right

also I didn't say it was, It just makes me sick when judging anything is labeled racism

And I suppose you think Christianity is that one. I do not. I have problems with religion in general, so I suppose I'm discriminating against people who aren't atheists. Anyway, back to the point of all this. You have no way of knowing who on the forums is ___________, so don't insult people. It's not always racism, but it's always wrong.

Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:

CoalMiningAlchemist wrote:

First of all, you can change it, and is saying the branch dividians were insane bigoted?

that and only one is right

also I didn't say it was, It just makes me sick when judging anything is labeled racism

And I suppose you think Christianity is that one. I do not. I have problems with religion in general, so I suppose I'm discriminating against people who aren't atheists.

As you have pointed out, MOST religions discriminate against the others. People pick on Christianity because of the whole one way to heaven thing, but look at all the other religions:

Judaism - Anti-Jesus + everything from Christianity.
Islam - KILL EVERYONE WHO ISN'T A MUSLIM!!!
Atheist - No God - THAT'S OFFENSIVE TO PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN THEM.

Actually Hinduism and Buddhism don't offend people. But that's because Hinduism has almost no definition at all

"Hinduism conceives the whole world as a single family that deifies the one truth, and therefore it accepts all forms of beliefs and dismisses labels of distinct religions which would imply a division of identity."

Eg. I could believe that Mack is the incarnation of a god and be a good person and thus I am a good Hindu.

and Buddhism is all about the self and being poor and stuff.

Also whatever China's religion is, but thats only a tool for controlling the masses, not a REAL religion.

Jews have nothing written against Christians and Jesus. His story is pure politics, both of ours and their time. Remember that any religion text is a political one. Did you notice that Christianise tried to differ itself from Judaism and says "they're not like us were better" . Why ? As you know in that time those lands were under roman control. If you want to spread your religion in such as hostile areas where the Romans actually burn the Christians like heretics you have to say "Romans are good" . After all ho killed Jesus - the Jews or the Romans ? But I want to see you blaming the Romans in the middle of the roman empire. Since this point the Christians hate Jews, later on with no reason. Afterwards the Christiansen become weaker but people need a reason to hate Jews , they move on to racism. After WW2 Racism became a very unpopular choice but have a look - There is a Jewish country we can now blame in all our problems ! Jewish is no better with those fanatics who follow those crazy "Rabies" that teach them to hate people, stop working and study all the day their books and invent crazy laws. Ok there's written don't eat Meat and milk together, but don't start building different kitchens for each one ... That’s what the expect from "Kosher" restaurants. To get this "Kosher" on your logo you have to pass a commission each month, which costs money that goes to those ****ers who don't even know how to work. They are a serious decelerator in our economy.

Speaking of religion, most of us here are Christian so think about this. Why in the why do Christians baptize babies? It's not like babies have done anything wrong. Why not baptize them when they are old enough to even understand what is going on? Plus, it's not like we can hold 5 year olds accountable for "sins".

Kobialka wrote:

Speaking of religion, most of us here are Christian so think about this. Why in the why do Christians baptize babies? It's not like babies have done anything wrong. Why not baptize them when they are old enough to even understand what is going on? Plus, it's not like we can hold 5 year olds accountable for "sins".

Yes, we can. According to the Bible, the children of Sodom and Gommorah were 'tainted', so even though most of those were babies incapable of coherent thought, God burnt them both to the ground, killing everyone.

One of the many reasons I disdain religion in any form.

Kobialka wrote:

Speaking of religion, most of us here are Christian so think about this. Why in the why do Christians baptize babies? It's not like babies have done anything wrong. Why not baptize them when they are old enough to even understand what is going on? Plus, it's not like we can hold 5 year olds accountable for "sins".

not all christians are idiots like that. mormons baptize at 8, when they (kind of) understand what's going on.

Sir Tielton wrote:

Yes, we can. According to the Bible, the children of Sodom and Gommorah were 'tainted', so even though most of those were babies incapable of coherent thought, God burnt them both to the ground, killing everyone.

One of the many reasons I disdain religion in any form.

I have 2 questions : 1. Where it was stated god burnt down the cities ? It's said he destroyed them but the rest is interpretation.
2. It states nothing about children.

Just a small point that allot of stuff we actually think is dictation from those who control us. Even the "holy" texts are changed in order to change your thinking. As someone who has finals about the original of the originals of holy texts I'm spending allot of time differing different texts and later editions to them. The old testament is a collection of stories, history, poetry, laws (and even pornography ) that tries to teach us some ideas. Some of them are helpful, some of them are dangerous.

The story + common interpretation of the Sodom and Gomorrah story follows: The text is actually one of the many lessons present in the Genesis book. This one is to teach us how to judge people correctly. In the end of the previous tale one of god's angels says that god heard scream from Sodom and he will go down there to check out. A question appears - how is it possible that the all knowing god needs to go down and check things for himself ? Point is that the text say that if God needs to go down and check out, mortal Judges must do it.
Next god returns to Abraham and informs him that the city is sinful and corrupt and so he wants to destroy it. Abraham stands for the city and says if there are 50 saints in this city will you save it all ? (Another lesson from god: the opposite of law is mercy. The judge must be merciful or what's the point in heaving a judge ? Lets just follow the rules book then... Abraham suggests him to invert the collective punishment and instead of punishing the whole city for the sinful men, to "punish" it for the saints and save the city)
God accepts his line and Abraham starts to trade with him until he gets to only 10 saints. The all knowing god knows there are no saints in those cities (No Abraham’s brother Lot is not a saint but he will be saved with his family), he does it to teach Abraham that even god can be criticized. So do mortal beings and the Judge should not be afraid from authority. Eventually god destroys the city though. As for the children they were victims of collective punishment. Yea it may be rude but hey the bible has different opinions about whats rude ... Besides how would you imagine them surviving out there alone without parents ?

This is an example of helpful lessons in the bible. There are also harmful ones such as different notes on opposing local clans and their bad nature. Those comments are there to basically propaganda against those clans. Problem is some of today's fanatics apply those terms to our days creating hatred here...

When you think about it, you're denying the children the capability of joining any other religion (Most religious texts have something discerning you can't worship other gods) before they even know what they want to be. Cruelty at its finest.

You mean circumcision ? Well it has nothing to do with Judaism. The old people found it helps our health ... I'll even tell you it was a common ritual in the middle east. The uhm .... parts that remain are given as sacrifice to the local fertility godness so that this person will have many children ...

I'm talking about these baptizing rituals, be it dunked in 'holy water' or chopping up one's penis, it has the same result - you're in effect committing your offspring to a religion they may or may not be happy with. However much I loathe them, that's one aspect Jehovah's Witnesses have right.

Iv121 wrote:

Jews have nothing written against Christians and Jesus. His story is pure politics, both of ours and their time. Remember that any religion text is a political one. Did you notice that Christianise tried to differ itself from Judaism and says "they're not like us were better" . Why ?

Because Christianity IS better. The Jews are still waiting for their promised savior to come and help them rule the world. Judaism is based on a UNFULFILLED promise. Christians on the other hand, have a savior, have a kingdom and are waiting to go there. Their promises have been fulfilled and they are just waiting for their reward. And they are helping anyone who also wants into that kingdom to come along.

Quote :

As you know in that time those lands were under roman control. If you want to spread your religion in such as hostile areas where the Romans actually burn the Christians like heretics you have to say "Romans are good" . After all ho killed Jesus - the Jews or the Romans ? But I want to see you blaming the Romans in the middle of the roman empire. Since this point the Christians hate Jews, later on with no reason.

Your history is wrong. The Jews killed Jesus.
"When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!""

The rest of that post is just anti-Semitism and not very nice, so I'll leave it out.

Sir Tielton wrote:

I'm talking about these baptizing rituals, be it dunked in 'holy water' or chopping up one's penis, it has the same result - you're in effect committing your offspring to a religion they may or may not be happy with. However much I loathe them, that's one aspect Jehovah's Witnesses have right.

I actually agree with you here. Baptizing a baby is useless. Being baptized means NOTHING. But your not committing yourself to any religion by being baptized.

The Jews disappointed God, so he cast them off. Jews just refuse to admit Jesus was the 'Messiah', so not really a lie. And to my knowledge the crowd chose death and the Romans carried out the sentence. Either way, they're not to blame.

You didn't read what I wrote didn’t you ? All ALL religious text are political. You won’t find the truth in words. You find a truth after very deep analysing of the time, of the text itself and other texts around it.
Besides interesting what Jesus the Jew thinks about it


Wanna hear a joke about it ?

The pontiff dies and goes up to the sky. One of the angels come to him and say:” You have a bit of poor luck, many deaths today , you'll have to wait for your turn". Well the pontiff sits there and waits, and suddenly a Rabbi appears from the clouds, two angle take his arms and lead him straight to heaven. The pontiff rages and says the angel "How is it possible that me , the pontiff , the replacer of Jesus on earth has to wait in the line while this Rabbi goes up straight to heaven !!!" and the angel answers "Shhhh the boss's Cousin ..."

Hope you get it .


BTW I don't want to offend you or stuff I don't rly care about your religion, more if you're fanatic ...

Iv121 wrote:

You didn't read what I wrote didn’t you ? All ALL religious text are political. You won’t find the truth in words. You find a truth after very deep analysing of the time, of the text itself and other texts around it.
Besides interesting what Jesus the Jew thinks about it

Which you did, didn't you...

But on the point of truth, I personally believe that everything in the Bible can be taken as fact. Any book that can hang around for 2000 years unedited must be a little more than a few fairy tales