I'm not Christian, or even religious for that matter, but there are numerous teachings of Jesus I really agree with and try to live by, forgiving enemies being one of them.
@TR Infiltrator, I'm just curious, why do you do those things if you don't believe in Jesus?
@TR Infiltrator, that's really all that matters
@ caucrasian , that's actually a great question. Honestly, I don't know. I think it's a mix between being raised by great people, and I personally believe you should love all hate none because you're a human being. Personally I think everyone is like that at heart. That's worded terribly and with time I could give a much better explanation but hey I tried.
@Brick Tamelin, most religions have really good messages and they bring people together extremely well, but lots of people twist those aspects for their own gain or it becomes personal interpretation gone wrong, and send people the wrong vibe towards their faith. But then there are other who just don't believe in it for whatever reason, no bias involved.
@TR Infiltrator, interesting. Why does being human mean we should love all and hate none? I know personally, this doesn't come very naturally to me. I often do things that hurt others because it benefits me or my friends (ie. pirating, being disrespectful or hurtful, being lazy, not allocating my time well etc.) and these things are almost like a compulsion, I just keep doing them. It's really admirable this comes so naturally to you but when I look at people (including myself) in general I have a hard time believing they have good hearts because of all their selfish actions.
@TR Infiltrator, i think modern christianity (i dont know about other religions) is meant to be focused more on living a better lifestyle than it is reading the bible and listening to what these stories are. The morales and values they give are fantastic, whereas the stories are just unrealistic. And this, coming from a catholic.
@TR Infiltrator, you're the commenter we need, but don't deserve. Thank you for giving a positive outlook to religion. So many people strive to hate it. Sure every organization has its faults, but we are human after all, aren't we? And it's not like those faults are the core beliefs of the organization!
@ caucrasian , it just logically seems like the better option. You feel better because you're nice to people, you don't ever feel angry or upset because of a bad relationship with someone, and when people agree with each other and aren't fighting, we get sh!t done, whether it be socially, religiously, scientifically, etc. it's not hard either. It's weird, you can just, "step away" from it. I don't understand when people say they hate someone. And trust me, I've been treated like crap by other people. Doesn't mean I hate them, in a way that suffering has made me a better person, so I sort of thank them :)
@ caucrasian , when it comes to the selfish and undesirable choices/thing a people do, I don't know a lot. Some is understandable, like personal gain or being selfish. We all do that, regardless of who we are, it's human nature. No one is perfect. But the act of hating another human being is lost on me, it doesn't benefit anyone. I forget where I heard it, but I once heard "hating someone else is like drinking poison and expecting them to die". No one is happy as a result. I think someone's the necessary evils of the world are just that, necessary. If there was nothing wrong then there would be nothing right. I accept these evils for what they are, but we as people should still try to avoid succumbing to them. There's a short story that was posted on here called "the egg" that I regard highly, because it outlines my opinion on lots of things pertaining to life in general and the way things work.
@nate930, no problem!
@TR Infiltrator, Preach it brother. I feel everything your saying. I'm not religious, agnostic actually. I believe it's beyond human speculation to determine which religion is correct. Or none of them could be. However, Jesus was an historical person. He actually went from town to town as a preacher and sometimes healed people. All that "son of God" stuff came later. But what he was teaching was to just be excellent to one another and I believe that whole heartedly. Just because I'm not religious doesn't mean I can't be a wise and good man.
@TR Infiltrator, I don't have to be kind to people because any sort of book tells me to. I'm kind to people because I WANT to be kind to them. Of course we all have our flaws but part of the goal of life is to knock those out of the way. Or know yourself well enough to catch yourself in those sorts of acts that come from your flaws.
@TR Infiltrator, I like you! John Maxwell once said we should do something not because it's enjoyable or easy or financially/socially profitable but because it's the right thing to do. I believe that was Jesus' message. At that time, he wasn't about creating a religion for himself, he just really wanted us to be better people: to live fully, love deeply and give of ourselves to help others in need.
@Banana Waffle, WOO FRIENDS. Yeah, I'd like to believe Jesus was just a really chill dude, but many religious texts want to make you think otherwise.
@The Handlebar , interesting thoughts. I like how clear and succinct you are in your reasoning. I'm curious, what sources are you drawing from when you say "the son of God stuff came later?" Biblically speaking he is affirmed as the Son of God from the beginning of his life and ministry and even from his own lips. I'd also like to delve into what you say about doing the right thing. How do you know what is right? Particularly in situations where people have differing views of the matter.
@TR Infiltrator, so what I hear you saying is : 1. Hate doesn't make sense. 2. People's hearts are good. 3. People make mistakes. 4. We should try not to make them and right them when we do. Is that about right?
@ caucrasian , I'm currently taking a class on Early Western Civilization. Western being Western Europe not the current west. The New Testament was written quite a while after the death of Jesus. Anywhere between 100-300 years after so anyone who contributed to the New Testament wasn't actually present during the events of Jesus' life. Any "quotes" they have of Jesus most likely aren't direct quotation. Also if I remember correctly his followers didn't consider him the "Son of God" until some years after his death. I doubt he ever claimed to be the son of God. That's the beauty of faith though, one doesn't need reason or evidence to justify one's beliefs.
@The Handlebar , really? Wow, never before have I ever heard that Jesus never claimed to be son of God, that's brand new information to me. Wherever you got it from, pleas tell me. This is legitimately interesting, I want to know what his real intentions were.
@ caucrasian , When I'm encountered with a situation where I'm in disagreement with another the best thing I can do is try to empathize with the person. Why do they believe what they believe? What experiences have they gone through that gives them an understanding of an idea that I understand differently? That's really the key to ending conflict between two or more people, understanding. Take a moment to think about the person and really FEEL what they feel. THINK what they think. As far as how to know what's right and wrong most things have to be learned. In some cases your conscience will tell you immediately. In most you have to make the mistake, feel bad about it, and remember that it's wrong the next time around. That's why wisdom comes with experience, not age.
@ caucrasian , Although there can be times where you can think through your potential actions and realize it's bad before you carry them out. Even if your conscience isn't saying it's wrong. But that also comes with wisdom. In conclusion (haha), even if you make the wrong choice you can still redeem yourself by learning from the experience and making the right choice next time around. It only gets easier to make the right choice the more you learn.
@ caucrasian , 1. For the most part, yes. Though there are exceptions when an atrocity is committed against a person. Then they have every right to whatever anger they possess, like the unjust murder of their loved ones for example. However I think the "better" option is that of forgiveness and reconciliation. Anger/hatred in itself is a human fault (to an extent) so reciprocating it as a reaction only prolongs hatreds existence. 2. Yes, as a single body. Of course any group has its outliers, and this is where I believe the "necessary evils" notion comes into play. Once again, I say if there was nothing wrong then there would be nothing right. That, and a single member of any unit does not represent the entirety of that group, especially one as large as the human race. 3. Ohhhhh yes, all the time. From petty things like lying to complete man made disasters against each other and the world we inhabit, like war. It is human nature to be imperfect. 4. Of course, that is progress. (1)
@TR Infiltrator, You have to realize that I'm talking about the historical Jesus. You can ask any devout Christian and they will tell you that Jesus claimed to be the son of God. Going strictly off historical evidence Jesus never proclaimed to be the Christ or the son of God. And this is where I risk offending people because faith is a tricky and fragile thing.
@ caucrasian , (continued) if you don't know what I mean by progress, read/Google the short story "The Egg". Listen, these opinions are based off of my experiences and intake of the world as I know it from my short 16 years of life. That's why I leave a lot of my responses open ended. I'm 16, there's an entire world to explore and evaluate. These are merely my thoughts on morality/philosophy whatever you want to call it. If anything they're nothing more than a kids ramblings.
@The Handlebar , interesting. The scholar I've read have placed the writing of the New Testament no later than 70 CE. They cite, among other things, that the Jewish War in 66 and the subsequent fall of the Jewish temple are not contained in the book of Acts, which is a historical account. I wonder what accounts of the discrepancy in theories.
@The Handlebar , I agree that empathy is a powerful tool for peace, but at the end of the day there are conflicts that empathy cannot mend, times when people are genuinely convinced that different things are right. Also, how can you learn what is right? Is it simply based on what makes you feel bad?
@ caucrasian , So it seems that the date all the works were collected and canonized into the New Testament is between 70-150 CE. However it is widely regarded among historians that the writers of these works were not present during Jesus' life.
@ caucrasian , If you have a conscience then most of the time it is simply what makes you feel bad. In other cases the line can be blurred. However the people who don't feel this are considered sociopathic which is a legitimate mental disorder.
@The Handlebar , hmmm. This is true, but people's consciences do not always say the same thing, do they? What you're saying suggests to me she you should do what you feel is right. Making right and wrong completely subjective. Is that right?
@ caucrasian , You pretty much hit the nail on the head. A person's experience shapes what they define to be right and wrong. A lot of work that early philosophers did was to try and find absolute morality. They believed that it existed, many still do, even I believe it partly although there is more grey area for me. This brings me back to empathy though. Try to understand what others believe to be right and wrong. I know that some actions are unforgivable, that doesn't mean a person has to retaliate negatively if another wronged him. Another part of wisdom is knowing how to react. I'm sure you'll ask "how do you know how to react?" You live life. There is really no easy answer, no cheat sheet that tells you what to do. You're obviously interested in this subject, as I was and still am. I recommend you pursue ethics, whether in classes or reading or what-have-you. I'm getting my minor in philosophy so I've studied this stuff quite a bit. It's a complex subject, but worth the effort.
@The Handlebar , so if the were collected and canonized during that time, they must have been written before 70 CE. From what I remember of me research into this it was widely believed that they were written by Christians who knew the apostles. This also doesn't explain on what authority you're saying he didn't claim to be the son of God. The Jewish Talmud (who certainly would not be biased towards Jesus) said he made blasphemous claims about himself, which would seem to suggest that he said what the Gospel claims.
@ caucrasian , I'm going off what I've learned in class from my instructor. This period of time is his area of study. He's done a lot of work with Christianity and his dissertation was on the reformation of the Christian Church. I've just chosen to believe what he tells me. I think I can trust it.
@The Handlebar , yes, I understand that. But from a purely historical point of view I'm interested in the life of Jesus the man, not the religious figure.
@TR Infiltrator, Some of the conversation going on between me and caucrasian is about the historical Jesus. His followers eventually began to call him the son of God but he didn't claim to be. As far as more detailed info I'm not quite THAT educated about him so you'd have to do your own research.
@The Legit Slim Shady, Nope, better. I'm trying to make people think.
@TR Infiltrator, Are you trying to break the internet?
@The Handlebar , I minors in philosophy as well. My problem with relative morality is that it can handle moral feeling, but not moral obligation. The minute you say, that's not fair to someone else, you have no legs to stand on. Could you base this assertion on public opinion or majority rules ethics? Yes. But then slavery was not wrong. Nor is religious oppression. There have been times when both of these where believed to be right by the majority of people. How did we get past these things? By agreeing that an external morality called us to something greater. That's how progress was made.
@ caucrasian , I see. And also, is it worth pursuing philosophy in college?
@TR Infiltrator, the difficulty with understanding Jesus from sources that are not the synoptic gospel is that they are fairly sparse on details as they did not spend near as much time with Jesus as the apostles did (and while the apostles didn't write the synoptic gospels, it is based on their testimony). There is source outside the Bible that claim he made blasphemous claims about himself. Which confirms that he made some claims of divinity about himself.
@TR Infiltrator, i am a big fan of a liberal arts education (though that isn't helping me find a job). Philosophy helps you reason, discuss, and write well and that is always a plus, though you are unlikely to ever see it asked for on a job posting unless you want to teach it.
@TR Infiltrator, by the way thanks for indulging my exploration of these ideas. I love this kinda stuff, but it can get long.
@The Handlebar , sounds like a good credible source :) Thanks for chatting with me by the way. I love this kind of talk, but I know it can be arduous to think/type/research this stuff.
@ caucrasian , Exactly. Like I said before I believe there's more absolute morality than not. For example slavery, that one is pretty easy. There are still controversial topics such as abortion where acting on abortion is permissible and sometimes not. The more detailed questions you ask the more colorful the spectrum. Humanity has discovered black and white answers but there is still a whole rainbow of controversy, haha. And thank you for the discussion. I absolutely love this stuff, it makes to world a more interesting place. Who needs small talk? :)
@TR Infiltrator, I began studying philosophy because I have a passion for deep conversation. I also spend most of my time in my head. If it's something you enjoy then I see no reason in not at least minoring in it, that's what I'm doing. Also if you ever work for a company with an ethics committee and you have some kind of degree in philosophy you have the potential to basically get a free promotion because you become part of that group. I'm majoring in physics and there are always ethical questions to be asked in the sciences so I hope to use my philosophical side along with my scientific mind.
@The Handlebar , all that "Son of God" stuff was actually prophesied in the old testament . Most people don't realize that. JESUS was far more than just a miracle worker He is the savior of the world, and to all who will recieve Him
@The Handlebar , ... I can't stop myself from continuing our conversation... Where do you think those absolutes come from? It seems like it has to be something outside of humanity for us to be so compelled by it, while at the same time so inadequate in achieving it.
@TR Infiltrator, as a college student, I would say take a philosophy elective or two if it really interests you, but generally try to stay away from the liberal arts as a primary focus or major, as there just aren't any jobs that want them other than teaching.
@ caucrasian , The simplest answer that comes to mind is the existence of a Creator that "wrote the rules of life" but me being agnostic I can't really speculate on that. Another idea is that it is strictly evolutionary. It is beneficial for our species to feel morality so that the species as a whole can survive and thrive. This would have to mean that our ideas of morality have slowly been developing with our ancestor species. Morality is something that separates humans, and other social animals, from the rest. Unfortunately this takes away the idea that morality is outside of humanity, or something supernatural, because it has developed within us as ever changing organisms. It could also mean that morality is not absolute, which I know you don't like.
@ caucrasian , My last idea is that perhaps these notions of absolute morality are just a part of the very fabric of our universe. It just permeates us and we act accordingly. This would imply that if there is intelligent life beyond Earth those organisms would have the same concepts of right and wrong that we do. I admit I haven't actually asked myself this question before so my ideas may be a little rough. What do you think?
@The Handlebar , Jesus never calls himself the "Son of God" because that solely meant you were a Jew, one of God's "chosen people." He does claim He is the "Son of Man" which is a reference to an Old Testament prophecy about God being on Earth. I don't want to diminish what you're saying, I just wanted to clear things up.
@TheAgent, Of course. And thank you. I think the biggest point I'm trying to make in this conversation thread is that when looking at Jesus the man and not Jesus the "Christ of Faith" one can not use the Bible as a source of historical record. I'm sure lots of people think the opposite about this but the historians I've talked to say that it's not a reliable source when one is trying to study Jesus as just a man. Thanks again.
@TheAgent, he does refer to God as "My Father" several times. Notably in John 10: 25-30, when people are trying to stone him for claiming to be the Messiah and claiming to be God. He also mentions here that he and the Father are one equating himself with God.
@The Handlebar , It seems to me that there must be a creator. I think Darwinian moral arguments have several holes. The first is that natural selection is about survival advantage and morality is not. I can see no good reason the traits that cause us to protect the weak, or care for the chronically infirm, or engage in any self-sacrifice would be selected for. Natural selection is a brutal and uncaring process. Additionally it seems to me Darwinian arguments cannot actually explain why one shouldn't be selfish. For example, they might say, "You shouldn't steal because it hires the group." To which one might reply, "Why should I care about the group?" To which they might reply, "Because if the group doesn't survive neither does the species." To which one might reply, "Why should I care about the species?" And so on. It's almost as if the Darwinian argument is trying to sneak morality in without saying anything.
@The Handlebar , So when I look the explanations of this universal sense of morality, it seems to me that a creator is the best and most complete answer. And alone this thought makes me uneasy 😊 Because I know personally that I fall short of morality frequently and having a creator means there is a force out there that abhors much of what I do.
@The Handlebar , oh, and one last thing. I do think that morality, among other things, is a way in which we can infer certain things about that creator, which I know you as an agnostic don't like 😊
@ caucrasian , Could you tell me more about why you think morality is not advantageous to survival?
@ caucrasian , I'm agnostic not atheist. Haha. I would personally love for there to be some kind of creator. It would be very comforting for me. For some reason though I can never seem to believe one way or the other. I ask myself "why should there necessarily be a creator?" Then I look around and begin to feel small and think "But there has to be something there, right?" And I've never been able to tip the scale in one direction. I guess I just wasn't gifted with faith.
@The Handlebar , I'm 13 days late to this great philosophical discussion, so I realize that the chances of you ever seeing this comment are slim. But! I love this reasonable discussion of ideas and it made me think of the book Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis. I would highly recommend it as a philosophical/logical approach to the idea of religion/Christianity.
@TawnyLion, Good thing I get notifications when people reply to me. I'm gonna have to check out this book too.
@The Handlebar , what?! I haven't commented in so long I didn't even know about the notifications! If you do read the book, I would love to hear what your thoughts are! I'm definitely in to deep conversations and people aren't normally so polite on the inter webs.
@TawnyLion, Don't I know it. I'll try to remember to share what I think.
@TR Infiltrator, I don't understand being so kind hearted, but I do admire it. If only there was more people like you in the world it would be a better place, and everybody would be kinder.
Tumblr in a nutshell
@Debearus, but where are the femini- *triggered* nvm...
Jesus Christ..... Oh.
No one comment on this picture. At all. Just move on to the next one.
@Commander Peanuts, People are gunna comment anyways so they can get their "social justice warrior I did something today" sticker. People love to justify that they are, in fact, TOTALLY tolerable of other beliefs, even though most people are and don't need to make a point of it.
@Radically Irrational, exactly. So you're tolerant. Good job. That's something that should be expected not something to be rewarded.
@Commander Peanuts, couldn't the point be to laugh about and discuss religion, which is a pretty significant part of a lot of people's lives?
@ caucrasian , I agree that's what we should do and what I do with my friends of different faiths. What do you mean by "the point" though? If you mean the point of this picture I don't think that's what they were going for and if you mean that's the point of the social justice warrior-ing then I think they're a little too serious and spiteful to be joking around.
@peace tree, *Slaps popcorn out of hands. Grabs by collar and throws into the pit* NO YOU'RE GONNA FIGHT
@peace tree, *grabs popcorn as well and has a seat next to you* here, I brought you a soda.
As a total agnostic, it's been my experience that more people sh*t on Christians than Christians do on other people.
Stuck pixel uploading a Non-religious hating pic!?!? Do i sense a change hmm?
Christians say gay marriage is bad: how dare them! Kill them! Religion is for idiots. Muslims dont accept gays: oh its just their religious beliefs
@fetus meatus, I'm not bias, I hate all bigots equally.
@Archmage Araketh, so you are bigotted towards bigots
@Archmage Araketh, how are they bigots though? its their belief
@fetus meatus, what they believe doesn't effect how much of a bigot they are. It's the fact that they're intolerant of others that makes them bigoted. And me hating them doesn't make me bigoted, as I still tolerate them.
@Archmage Araketh, but they arent intolerant, they just believe they shouldnt get married(for most christians) and you arent tolerating them when you say you hate them
@fetus meatus, tolerating is different from liking. Tolerating means to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit. Whereas liking them means corresponding or agreeing in general or in some noticeable respect. One is agreement, the other is putting up with them. Christians who don't agree with gay marriage are intolerant, because they would stop it if they could. However I believe Christians have the right to their religion, but don't agree with it.
@fetus meatus, pretty sure people hate the Muslims just as much for being bigots
@Mrfriedfood, but not like the way they attack Christians
@fetus meatus, I think mostly because they aren't put in as much light. This country is mostly Christian, do anything Christian related gets put in the spotlight more than religions like Muslim, Judaism and Hinduism. In my mind, however, I think they are equally as silly.
@Archmage Araketh, here you go again, neckbeard. Same ol tired arguments
@Pubmarine Shamwich, I see that you also have nothing better to do than stalk and reply to whatever I post. So again, I don't care that you don't like when I start a discussion. The point of the comic section is to say what you think. If you can't deal with that then you should probably leave.
@Archmage Araketh, do u like... not have anything else to do?
@Angular Notspice, I do, but I don't see how that concerns you
@Archmage Araketh, As a Catholic, we are taught not to be intolerant towards gays, just that they can't marry. There is nothing wrong with being gay. CCC 2357-2359 for reference.
@Chickencow, They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. I it says that being gay is wrong. Although it does say 'They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.', it also says 'Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.'. This suggests that homosexuality makes them 'imperfect' and they should become heterosexual.
@Archmage Araketh, All of us are imperfect, gay or straight. We all sin. Being gay is not bad, it's not a choice. We all should strive for perfection, in a homosexual person's case, that means being called to chastity.
Anyone notice how the people who preach tolerance are the most discriminatory hypocrites? "You can't hate on these groups, but this one is fine to hate on, do it with a passion"
@Kangaroo Jacked, yes
The only reason people shun religion is because it is constantly contradicting itself. How can you say to forgive your enemies when mostly "christians" treat everyone like sh!t for not following their religion. I dont think any religion is right. You shouldnt need jesus to tell you the difference between right and wrong
@eksat, That all depends on who you talk to. I was born and raised Catholic, stereotypically the most intolerant denomination of Christianity, and I do not hate everyone that is not Catholic. My boyfriend is a devout Presbyterian; my best friend is also Protestant; I have multiple close friends that are atheist; I am good friends with multiple homosexuals; and I talk to so many people that are other Christian denomiations and religions, including a Muslim exchange student and a Jewish classmate. In fact, I dislike more fellow Catholics than I do people of other religions. Why? Because those few are the Bible freaks that cannot accept the views of others, and unfortunately those Catholics are the ones that people associate all Catholics with. I assure you we are all not intolerant @ssholes and I apologize for their intolerance.
@thatonebandgeek, I'm sure you are all not. But unfortunately the majority is. Hopefully people can learn to think more open mindedly like yourself ☺
@thatonebandgeek, As a fellow Catholic, I agree wholeheartedly.
@eksat, that is a really prejudiced, hurtful, and unprovable thing to say. I'm a Christian and I hang out with a lot of Christians who are extremely open minded and kind. Please don't paint us all with the same brush.
@ caucrasian , i know it is. Its the same prejudiced attitude I get for no believing in anything and being gay. Before you paint my picture keep in mind I'm writing about my experiences I am not trying to talk down on anyone's beliefs, I'm say from my experience that religion has a lot of hypocrites who say to do good and treat others the same but as soon as they leave the church are the biggest @ssholes to everyone for being slightly different from them. You must all be up north because down here in Florida that's just how things are
@eksat, I hear you and I'm sorry you've had such painful experiences. There are undoubtedly many hypocrites in the church, just like everywhere else. Church is after all a hospital for sinners not a club for saints. It's really rarely fair for anyone to make generalizations about people, whether your white, black, Christian, atheist, straight, gay, doesn't matter. We're pretty much all just people trying to live our lives as best we can.
@ caucrasian , agreed, I apologize if anything I said hurt anyone, I wrote that post in a bad mood and did not think about who it might hurt. Your words have truly inspired me to look at things in a new light. I appreciate it very much
To be fair it isn't the teaching that's a problem it's the general failure to live by that teaching by the fundamentalists while loudly proclaiming the teaching that's an issue.
@Ollie Queen, that is almost beautiful except a fundamentalist would realise and abide by the fundamental teachings. Its people who pick and choose what they want in order to follow desires that are the problem e.g. ISIS KKK Britain First Boko Haram. Theyre just hateful and pick what fits their agenda.
@Ollie Queen, and we shouldn't allow them to get away with it because it makes true fundamentalists look bad.
@Angular Notspice, well yes, but fundamentalists is just what they call themselves and not a literal description of what they are.
Buddha is about religion though.
@ nerdlover4474, Correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't really look into other religions that often, but I think that Buddhism is nontheistic
@Corycogo5737, I hit enter too early. Like I said I think Buddhism is a nontheistic religion, so that may be why he didn't consider it a religion.
@ nerdlover4474, actually there are two types of Buddhists. One group thinks of the Buddha as a god which would be the religious group but the other group just sees the Buddha as a teacher of sorts and don't worship him
@ nerdlover4474, Buddhism isn't a religion - it's s way of life. It doesn't require blind faith in a divine being, it teaches that anyone can attain Enlightenment by flowing the Way. The Buddha isn't seen as a god; Buddha literally means "the Awakened One".
I'm religious. Big whoop. Now everyone shut up and laugh at the dang picture.
I was going to write a long comment about historically religion has killed millions of people compared to the other non violent protestor and humble monk, but then I remembered this is the Internet and 65% of you are Christian....
@N101, haha, that we are. And I wouldn't jump to saying religion killed, but the religious killed. IE the crusades are not supported by biblical theology at all
@N101, just under Stalin, more people were killed in the name of Atheism than all Christian genocides combined. Then Mr Zedong decided to step up and nearly quadruple that. Authoritarian Socialism, folks. Scary stuff.
@Doctor Krieger, umm Hitler was Christian. And I know I'm going to get down voted for this but you know. He was quoted saying it many time, there are quotes of himmler and other officers saying it's a Christian party so...
@N101, him being Christian doesn't make him represent Christianity.
@Chickencow, “I have followed [the Church] in giving our party program the
character of unalterable finality, like the Creed. The Church has
never allowed the Creed to be interfered with. It is fifteen hundred
years since it was formulated, but every suggestion for its
amendment, every logical criticism, or attack on it, has been
rejected. The Church has realized that anything and everything can be
built up on a document of that sort, no matter how contradictory or
irreconcilable with it. The faithful will swallow it whole, so long
as logical reasoning is never allowed to be brought to bear on it.”
[Adolf Hitler, from Rauschning, _The Voice of Destruction_, pp. 239-40]
@N101, I never mentioned Hitler, who was CATHOLIC by the way.
@N101, also, Hitler killed around 7 million. Stalin, 20-30 million. Zedong, almost 80 million. Even if Hitler was Christian (he wasn't), my point still stands.
I was told that the name Jesus was never properly translated in the bible, because if it was he would be named Joshua.
I don't have enemies because the only people I think are worth classifying are all people who like me and no one els matters enough they need to get over it of course it isn't like I don't want an arch nemesis I just haven't found the right person yet
Ghandism, Buddhism, and Jesism.
@Mookies, Jesism. That's a new one.
Honestly, I don't care what religion you follow. If you follow it as a guide to make yourself a better person and to help your community, than you are "doing it right", so to speak. I constantly hear others complain about people of the Muslim faith, and to be honest, I don't get it. Why blame all of the religion for a few extremists that, in reality, are everywhere. Sorry to take your time, bore you, offend you, or anything else. If you can give me any insight, anything will be welcome. Thanks and have a nice day.
Also Christianity is like the Apple of religions.
I mean Christianity kinda started wars and killed many innocent people and forced people to live by their rules and tortured people. Ghandi and Buddha didn't do anything close to that...
@UpDownWays, to be fair, that's not Christianity itself, that is simply people who had a perverted view of Christianity
@UpDownWays, that would be like blaming Islam for Isis...
@UpDownWays, I agree with olesword. The New Testament brought a new administration of forgiveness. Nowhere does it say to go conquer and kill people. It says just the opposite. Bad people just used it incorrectly as a weapon.
@Debearus, the difference us that the church doesn't back isis, the Christian church backed their murder runs. Not saying it makes them any better or worse but it happened.
@mazemarble, at the same time and now the church funded hospitals and places of learning. Many invention were made by monks... So not everything they funded was bad
@UpDownWays, it is true that people committed many grave atrocities in the name of Christianity, but it's important to keep in mind that the core values and teaching of Christianity condone these actions. I bet Jesus weeps every time someone sins and commits a crime in his name, because they are not true Christians
@mazemarble, you know why that is? Because of all the shjt that was going around the church. The church was corrupt which is why Martin Luther nailed the 95 theses on the door.
@mazemarble, It's ok to convinced of your opinion. But I've been involved with national and international outreach programs with roughly 40 different Christian churches...and all of them have supported homeless food kitchens, overseas help programs, and other general welfare systems.
@oleksword, i agree with that statement, just like how modern day islam is perverted by many wrongful groups.
@UpDownWays, I mean like you don't see people trying to use the teachings of Gandhi and Buddha to try and take over and abuse their power xD
@mazemarble, the people involved in the church really had nothing to do with the crusades. It was mainly the catholic higher ups who interpreted the bible however they want (it was only presented in Latin and the pope retained absolute authority) absolute power corrupts.
@oleksword, Ok, so I will probably get downvoted for voicing an unpopular opinion here, but ... if you can't measure a religion by the actions of its followers, then there is nothing to interpret the saying of a religion. In my opinion, the actions of the masses of followers in response to religious teaching should be how we decide the true meanings of the religion. (IE: Majority rules) If in the old times, the masses were persuaded to fight in wars over Christianity, then the popular belief at the time was that the bible is instructing them to slaughter. I don't mean to say that they weren't also persuaded partially by high powered people, but be realistic guys, they did it just as much because that's what the popular religious beliefs said they should do at the time.
@UpDownWays, every religion has good and bad followers. There are plenty of friendly, good hearted Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, etc., just as there are ones that have questionable morals.
@Radically Irrational, hoping not to offend with my comment, but your explanation really peaked my interest. If people were to measure everything by the reactions of others, judging how good something is would be based on things like "every steven universe fan is an annoying kid who fantasizes about an endless list of character pairings" and "every my little pony fan is a 42 year old pervert who doesn't have a life" - just because those are the most talked about and well known representations. The sad thing is-I think a lot of people probably skip out on giving things a chance because of this. Basically what I'm trying to say is that I believe different people react differently to the same thing and it would be unwise to base an opinion off of what a select group of people believes, rather than directly try to understand the source and judge what the true meaning is for yourself. Hope that made sense and didn't come off rude. Thanks for reading.
Just because I don't follow your religion doesn't might I hate it
It seems to me that there must be a creator. I think the Darwinian moral arguments have several holes. The first is that natural selection is about survival advantage and morality is not. I can see no good reason the traits that cause us to protect for the weak, or the chronically infirm, or engage in any self-sacrifice would be selected for. Natural selection is a brutal and uncaring process. Additionally, it seems to me Darwinian arguments cannot actually explain why one shouldn't be selfish. For example, they might say "You shouldn't steal because it hurts the group." To which one might reply, "Why should I care about the group?" To which they might reply, "Because if the group doesn't survive, neither does the species." To which one might reply, "Why should I care about the species?" And so on. This usually ends on because that is the basic animal drive (or something similar) and that doesn't answer how that "basic human drive" got there in the first place.
Buddha is the creator of Buddhism how is that not religion
Who is this meant to satirise?
Oh thats funny!, wow lol haha, ooh no! Long unrelated comment.
Because Buddha is not religious at all.
Nothing wrong with what Jesus said, problem is with the people that wrote it down later
I've always wondered why anything related to religion is somehow always seen as controversial. Really, most religious teachings are positive and have good messages. I don't want to disclose my personal religious beliefs, but I don't think that someone should freak at the sight of religion.
@Vaati, I think that's due to all the negative things you see that are tied to religion like persecution and fighting done by those with a popular (but still their own personal) interpretation.