Man created the Bluepill as a weapon

[Who Dares Win]

Everyone lets his decisions made from someone else. The only difference is today we get manipulated because the powerful people know that its better to rule without let the people know they are controlled.

BTW did you know that men who followed such strict religions made great inventions and conquered the world? There are tons of people today who claim that they obey nobody but they are used like a tool for example by capitalism. It's a illusion that we are free today.

The only thing I recall is that the most strict believers happened Europe during the middle age which in fact is when europeans forgot anything the greeks and the roman discovered or invented (you probably remember people burned cause they said the earth revolt around the sun and not the other way around).

It needed 1000 years to get back on track and both the agricoltural and industrial revolution happen in one of the least religious country of the time exactly when religion was no longer the driving factor for politics.

Oh and also lets not forget islam which turned Egypt, Syria and Anatolia from the wealthiest area of the old world into the amazing mess they are still now.

 

[Baibars]

The only thing I recall is that the most strict believers happened Europe during the middle age which in fact is when europeans forgot anything the greeks and the roman discovered or invented (you probably remember people burned cause they said the earth revolt around the sun and not the other way around).

It needed 1000 years to get back on track and both the agricoltural and industrial revolution happen in one of the least religious country of the time exactly when religion was no longer the driving factor for politics.

Oh and also lets not forget islam which turned Egypt, Syria and Anatolia from the wealthiest area of the old world into the amazing mess they are still now.

These people you talk about were not strict but idiots. Being strict in religion doesnt mean that you have to be against science.

Atheists and haters of religions always claim that religions brought us nothing than war and regression. This is not a fact.
Christian and islamic scientists made many inventions. Without these we werent were we are today.

Fact is that capitalism and materialism totally destroys progress. Why? How can there be progress if everything is ruled by people who are worshipping money and only think about their own well being.
There were so many wars and death since industrial revolution and this era has just started.

 

[Who Dares Win]

These people you talk about were not strict but idiots. Being strict in religion doesnt mean that you have to be against science.

Atheists and haters of religions always claim that religions brought us nothing than war and regression. This is not a fact.
Christian and islamic scientists made many inventions. Without these we werent were we are today.

Fact is that capitalism and materialism totally destroys progress. Why? How can there be progress if everything is ruled by people who are worshipping money and only think about their own well being.
There were so many wars and death since industrial revolution and this era has just started.

There are no such things as "moderate" or "totalitarian" when it comes of religion, you either have sex only after marriage or you do it before.

You either eat pig or you dont, those that are called moderates are simply clever people that take decisions with their brain disregarding senseless obligations.

Those same scientist you talk about didnt invent something cause of religion, they did it despite of it.

Let me remind you that religious leaders in 2020 still say that people with cancer suffering as animals whos life is only sufference and pain and only awaiting a slow death should not be given peace but instead kept alive as long as possible even when they beg for mercy themselves....that alone should make you think twice.

 

[Baibars]

There are no such things as "moderate" or "totalitarian" when it comes of religion, you either have sex only after marriage or you do it before.

You either eat pig or you dont, those that are called moderates are simply clever people that take decisions with their brain disregarding senseless obligations.

Those same scientist you talk about didnt invent something cause of religion, they did it despite of it.

Let me remind you that religious leaders in 2020 still say that people with cancer suffering as animals whos life is only sufference and pain and only awaiting a slow death should not be given peace but instead kept alive as long as possible even when they beg for mercy themselves....that alone should make you think twice.

Those who are moderate are dumb because their religion tells them that they go to hell if they follow their own desires instead of gods word. If you believe that there is a god. Something that is so powerful and if you truly would believe it you wouldnt do whatever you want. You would obey.
So either you believe or not. If you claim that you believe but only obey the things you agree with you cant be a believer because you literally say im smarter than god. Youre sorting rules out that a perfect being made.

They did it because of religion. My religion wants me to research. Its mandatory.

Anti religious propaganda comes from materialitsts, capitalists, all those who only think about their own well being and interests because religion contradict their ideas.
Otherwise they wouldnt give a fck about religions. The more a religion influences people the more they hate on it.

Feminism contradicts human nature and even atheism. It contradicts our biology but they push it because its ideas benefit those powerful rulers of today.

 

[zekko]

There are no such things as "moderate" or "totalitarian" when it comes of religion, you either have sex only after marriage or you do it before.

You either eat pig or you dont, those that are called moderates are simply clever people that take decisions with their brain disregarding senseless obligations.

Just to be clear, according to the Bible Christians are not under any dietary restrictions, those belong to the Old Covenant which God made with Israel. I would also say that it is very arguable that pre-marital sex is not specifically prohibited in the Bible either. A lot of people think so because of the modern word "fornicate", which as I understand it is used as a translation of an older word which means "sexual immorality". How you define that is another question. Be that as it may, I don't think sex is something which should be taken lightly since it could result in STDs, unwanted pregnancy, and interpersonal difficulties of about any type you could imagine.

Besides which, Christians are not bound by the law, because they are given freedom from it because of the sacrifice of Christ:
Romans 6:14
"For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace."

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

The only thing I recall is that the most strict believers happened Europe during the middle age which in fact is when europeans forgot anything the greeks and the roman discovered or invented (you probably remember people burned cause they said the earth revolt around the sun and not the other way around).

It needed 1000 years to get back on track and both the agricoltural and industrial revolution happen in one of the least religious country of the time exactly when religion was no longer the driving factor for politics.

Wrong wrong wrong. That was because they changed the original teachings of Jesus and created a whole new hierarchal system to have power over them. When Christianity began spreading, literacy rates skyrocketed to around 80% which was fkn unheard of back then. Then feudalism took over and it dropped down to 3%. By then though, the original teachings of Jesus had been lost and/or altered to the Christianity we have today. It was human corruption that caused this decline, not religion.

Oh and also lets not forget islam which turned Egypt, Syria and Anatolia from the wealthiest area of the old world into the amazing mess they are still now.

This is also wrong, good God bro. When Islam was practiced and widespread, you could leave the doors to your house and shops unlocked and not have to worry about people stealing. You had countless inventions during this time period from Muslim polymaths (Ibn Sina, Abbas ibn Farnas, Ibn Haitian, etc. ), had the very first university in the world (founded by a woman; so much for female oppression...), and had religious scholars (al-Ghazali) who put the teachings of Aristotle to shame (fun fact: al-Ghazali’s occasionalism is basically what we call quantum mechanics today). It took none other than Genghis Khan to end it all, not even the combined might of Persia and Rome were powerful enough to stop them.

And let’s not forget, it was YOUR country that created the mess in the Middle East. You guys had to send countless spies over there to help destroy the Ottoman Empire, something your government doesn’t even deny. You even made a fkn movie about it (Lawrence of Arabia anyone?). Not just that, but you were the ones who founded Muslim religious extremism in the first place in order to help further divide the people of the Middle East (see here). This doesn’t even come close to secret treaties like the Sykes-Picot Agreement (fk u too France) or the Treaty of Darin. Pretty much all of Western and Central Europe (and Russia) has been trying to destroy the Middle East since the 1700s at least. I’m not even gonna mention the absolute cluster**** that Operation Cyclone was. This is the same exact bs propaganda that’s been going on for the past 2 decades. People watch the news and all of a sudden think they have a PhD in history while at the same time saying they don’t trust anything the news tells them. What a joke...

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

There it is i I didn't write it

Neither did Jesus lol

 

[wifehunter]

Just to be clear, according to the Bible Christians are not under any dietary restrictions, those belong to the Old Covenant which God made with Israel. I would also say that it is very arguable that pre-marital sex is not specifically prohibited in the Bible either. A lot of people think so because of the modern word "fornicate", which as I understand it is used as a translation of an older word which means "sexual immorality". How you define that is another question. Be that as it may, I don't think sex is something which should be taken lightly since it could result in STDs, unwanted pregnancy, and interpersonal difficulties of about any type you could imagine.

Besides which, Christians are not bound by the law, because they are given freedom from it because of the sacrifice of Christ:
Romans 6:14
"For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace."

The ten commandments are now completed, and obsoleted.

Instead of ten, we have only one 'New Covanent' law:

"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” - NKJV

Love

 

[Serenity]

That's exactly true. You must believe in yourself of above all else. Because the light is already in you.

"The light of ALL men" not just some. But all.
Look it up

I get the metaphor, I just don't tie it to some omnipotent being. In fact it only supports that religion is man made. Since the phenomenon you're taking about is next to impossible to explain to someone who hasn't felt it, man made religion in hopes of conveying it. I view religions as more of a metaphor, not without good points, but definitely without anything supernatural.

 

[Who Dares Win]

Im not the most educated man about religions so Im not gonna follow this conversation (cant really cite any line from the bible).

I will only answer in terms of politics and economy to Baibars, Zecco and Doublegreatest.

@Baibars thats exactly what Im saying there are no moderate or zealtos you either do what you're supposed to do or you are no religious at all therefore the real muslims are those who treat women according to the coran not the ones who behave as westerns...so the whole "moderate islam" is a non sense as much as open minded christians.

@Zecco agree that most of rules are simple wat to make sure ignorant people doesnt do stupid things for the time like eating pig in a place where pig parassytes are common as much as washing yourself before praying since hygiene was often neglected then.

Regarding the rules I still remember my friends when I was a kid and how their catholic parents told them not to eat meat on fridays...cant really tell if thats on the bible or it was tweeted from the pope and taken for granted.

@ImTheDoubleGreatest! As I said many great inventors did an amazing job not cause of religions but despite of it for the simple fact that the wrong word who happened not the be liked from religious authority could have been lethal, see the earth and the sun as I said before.

Regarding the ottoman empire, they collapses for the simple fact that they tried to behave a superpower as the middle age while being poor and unstable, it wasnt my country to destroy it but the fact that the leader coulnt even control his palace due to political plots that involved even his special forced the jannissaries...all of this while failing to do any social reforms like the rest of the leading countries.

Add that the fact that a nation that keeps within itself people of different culture and ethnicities is unstable by definition, what the westerns did was what they did to each other except that the ottomans were already done by themselves especially after waging war to russia for centuries despite uncapable industries compare to theirs.

I find it funny when you said Europe always try to destroy the middle east when starting from the birth of islam all we got are easter attacks toward the west that stop only when they could no longer do it.

We had the arabs to capture syria, lebannon, egypt that were all christians (many centuries before any crusade see eastern roman empire), we got countless easterns attack costantinople (arabs included much earlier than the turkish), we got african pirates attacking ships from venice and genoa in the mediterranean and ofc we got the afroarabs from north africa to occupy spain till 1492 but ofc it was the west fault.

Crusades happened many centuries after christian lands where conquered from islam and they were directed only toward few key areas.

I agree with you about current days where the middle east is basically a land of conquest for most western powers and chine but thats because modern geopolitics is based on the heartland theory.
https://www.creighton.edu/fileadmin...ce/MVJ/docs/The_Pivot_-_Alcenat_and_Scott.pdf

If it was for me I would be for a total no interference politics as much as I would drastically reduce immigration for culturally uncompatible contries.

 

[Baibars]

I think we're deviating from the topic here.

@Who Dares Win I discussed many times with people like you and there is no way we can find a common denominator. I understand the way you view things and why you do it.
I'm also against mass migration in the west and i also dislike those hakan types you described in another post of yours.

The topic here was that man made the blue pill and religions somehow mixed with that. Blue pill has nothing to do with religion wether it's islam, christianity or judaism.
But today we see blue pill ideas in all of these 3 religious groups. I would say the monotheistic religions are Red pill af in their core.

Blue pill is a new thing that they made up in order to control men. Mens satisfaction in live cannot be dependent on women. Men cannot make women the center of their lives but society conditioned men to do so.
Some say the elites invented this in order to control men.

 

[Who Dares Win]

I think we're deviating from the topic here.

@Who Dares Win I discussed many times with people like you and there is no way we can find a common denominator. I understand the way you view things and why you do it.
I'm also against mass migration in the west and i also dislike those hakan types you described in another post of yours.

The topic here was that man made the blue pill and religions somehow mixed with that. Blue pill has nothing to do with religion wether it's islam, christianity or judaism.
But today we see blue pill ideas in all of these 3 religious groups. I would say the monotheistic religions are Red pill af in their core.

Blue pill is a new thing that they made up in order to control men. Mens satisfaction in live cannot be dependent on women. Men cannot make women the center of their lives but society conditioned men to do so.
Some say the elites invented this in order to control men.

Yeah I agree with you, we can hardly find a common ground and its fine.

I dont believe this is a topic worth of commitment and priority, guess we agree to disagree.

 

[Black Widow Void]

"You better watch out. You better not cry. You better not pout, I'm telling you why. Santa Claus is coming to town."

The above belief and fear/reward system worked pretty well on impressionable children.

I wonder what belief system could be provided to keep adults in similar line?

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

As I said many great inventors did an amazing job not cause of religions but despite of it for the simple fact that the wrong word who happened not the be liked from religious authority could have been lethal, see the earth and the sun as I said before.

Wrong again. Those same people would tell you otherwise. The geocentric/heliocentric thing you’re talking about happened during the time of feudalism, which again was due to human corruption, not because of religion.

Regarding the ottoman empire, they collapses for the simple fact that they tried to behave a superpower as the middle age while being poor and unstable, it wasnt my country to destroy it but the fact that the leader coulnt even control his palace due to political plots that involved even his special forced the jannissaries...all of this while failing to do any social reforms like the rest of the leading countries.

And none of the spies Britain sent there had anything to do with it? Are you kidding me??? People like Mustafa Kemal ‘Ataturk’ weren’t even Muslim and neither was ibn Saud. THAT is why there was political instability, not because of religion. The Ottoman Empire began weakening after they began drifting away from religion lmao! And it all coincided with a concerted effort from your ‘great’ country to purposefully try to destroy it (and the Middle East as a whole).

Add that the fact that a nation that keeps within itself people of different culture and ethnicities is unstable by definition, what the westerns did was what they did to each other except that the ottomans were already done by themselves especially after waging war to russia for centuries despite uncapable industries compare to theirs.

No no no, that was simply a divide & conquer strategy. Did you even read about the treaties I told you about? There are VOLUMES written on this topic, especially in regards to Saudi Arabia. It was this nationalism that was injected into society that made it easier for them to destroy the Ottomans. Throughout all of history though, they weren’t able to. And it took a combined alliance with Central/Eastern Europe and Russia to hurt the Ottomans in order to attack them from all sides, which is again, European treachery.

I find it funny when you said Europe always try to destroy the middle east when starting from the birth of islam all we got are easter attacks toward the west that stop only when they could no longer do it.

We had the arabs to capture syria, lebannon, egypt that were all christians (many centuries before any crusade see eastern roman empire), we got countless easterns attack costantinople (arabs included much earlier than the turkish), we got african pirates attacking ships from venice and genoa in the mediterranean and ofc we got the afroarabs from north africa to occupy spain till 1492 but ofc it was the west fault.

I love how you conveniently leave out the fact that EUROPE TRIED ATTACKING THE MUSLIMS FIRST. The Ghassanids killed Muslim emissaries who only were trying to tell people about Islam, and then when the Muslims sent troops up, the Byzantines also decided to send an army to support them too. Europe is just salty that they lost all those battles and lost the crown jewel of Europe—Constantinople.

And as for Spain, the people asked for help against King Roderic because he was an oppressive ruler. He also tried expanding to modern-day Morocco too and would raid them a lot. Then afterwards, you guys committed a mass genocide against Muslims by just straight up killing nearly 1 million of them. You can google the torture methods Christian Spain used on them. They did it just for the sake of torture, not even because of any sort of religious thing. Like I said, Europe was always the one who attacked the Muslims/Middle East first.

Crusades happened many centuries after christian lands where conquered from islam and they were directed only toward few key areas.

They wanted to reconquer the so-called ‘Holy Land’. The Byzantine Emperor at the time asked for a few hundred cavalry because some Kurds were running around giving them trouble, but the Pope decided to amass this huge army from all parts of Europe to reconquer the Levant. He completely bypassed the Byzantines though and made no effort to even help them lmao he was really just power-hungry.

I agree with you about current days where the middle east is basically a land of conquest for most western powers and chine but thats because modern geopolitics is based on the heartland theory.
https://www.creighton.edu/fileadmin...ce/MVJ/docs/The_Pivot_-_Alcenat_and_Scott.pdf

If it was for me I would be for a total no interference politics as much as I would drastically reduce immigration for culturally uncompatible contries.

Yeah but it goes even deeper than that unfortunately; Rothschild family and freemasonry and all that. Not gonna get into it right now.

 

[Who Dares Win]

Wrong again. Those same people would tell you otherwise. The geocentric/heliocentric thing you’re talking about happened during the time of feudalism, which again was due to human corruption, not because of religion.

Feudalism is not related to time but politics and economy, it was a system first introduced from the franks therefore the first foundation of your concept is wrong.

Galileo one of the most famous persecuted happened to live in Pisa that was a republic anyway.

Giordano Bruno who shared copernicus vision got burned guess guess in the papal state.

And none of the spies Britain sent there had anything to do with it? Are you kidding me??? People like Mustafa Kemal ‘Ataturk’ weren’t even Muslim and neither was ibn Saud. THAT is why there was political instability, not because of religion. The Ottoman Empire began weakening after they began drifting away from religion lmao! And it all coincided with a concerted effort from your ‘great’ country to purposefully try to destroy it (and the Middle East as a whole).

No no no, that was simply a divide & conquer strategy. Did you even read about the treaties I told you about? There are VOLUMES written on this topic, especially in regards to Saudi Arabia. It was this nationalism that was injected into society that made it easier for them to destroy the Ottomans. Throughout all of history though, they weren’t able to. And it took a combined alliance with Central/Eastern Europe and Russia to hurt the Ottomans in order to attack them from all sides, which is again, European treachery.

Ehm yes given that I work for the european union I happened to learn those during my studies and I dont understand what do you find so amazing about it, you will find the same things in treaties that regulated european nations everytime someone won a war and someone lost it.

The ottomans made one stupid mistake which was picking the wrong allied in WWI simple as that, unless you believe foreign politics and machiavelism are a conspiracy ofc.

I love how you conveniently leave out the fact that EUROPE TRIED ATTACKING THE MUSLIMS FIRST. The Ghassanids killed Muslim emissaries who only were trying to tell people about Islam, and then when the Muslims sent troops up, the Byzantines also decided to send an army to support them too. Europe is just salty that they lost all those battles and lost the crown jewel of Europe—Constantinople.

There are no such things about europe attacking the muslim first unless you believe of course that those spreading religions do it for peaceful purposes, I mean you see conspiracies where exist real politics yet you believe that those following the coran in the middle age were there to peacefully promote their religion?

By word or sword all shall be converted...but yeah peaceful emissaries only willing to share their religion.

Hey listen, I have a big building in rome very huge all made of stone only lacking doors, I could send you for a good price.

And as for Spain, the people asked for help against King Roderic because he was an oppressive ruler. He also tried expanding to modern-day Morocco too and would raid them a lot. Then afterwards, you guys committed a mass genocide against Muslims by just straight up killing nearly 1 million of them. You can google the torture methods Christian Spain used on them. They did it just for the sake of torture, not even because of any sort of religious thing. Like I said, Europe was always the one who attacked the Muslims/Middle East first.

So the good muslim invaded spain to save the spanish from an oppressive king, kinda remind me of fairy tales I was used to read while I was a kid...there was clearly no agenda behind it.

Anyway let me remind you that our conversation starts from the fact that religions create conflict...I dont really care which one of the christian or muslims were the "bad guys" back then, it still supports my point.

They wanted to reconquer the so-called ‘Holy Land’. The Byzantine Emperor at the time asked for a few hundred cavalry because some Kurds were running around giving them trouble, but the Pope decided to amass this huge army from all parts of Europe to reconquer the Levant. He completely bypassed the Byzantines though and made no effort to even help them lmao he was really just power-hungry.

Was syria christian or muslim? was palestine christian or muslim? listen its simpe to see who started it, all you have to do it see what it was and then what it became due to warfare.

If muslims invade sweden conquering it then swedes invade it back to reclaim it, who is the bad guy the one who started it or the one we see more often on tv?

Is the bad guy the one who invade a land to push his culture or a guy from the previous culture which try to claim it back?

Yeah but it goes even deeper than that unfortunately; Rothschild family and freemasonry and all that. Not gonna get into it right now.

Of course rothschild and their plan, hope james bond will manage to bomb their subterran base once for all next time.

Hey dont get me wrong, Im not saying muslims are bad and christians are good...I believe anyone who does bad things is bad simple as that as much as I believe anyone who think and behave like a sheep is a sheep.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

Feudalism is not related to time but politics and economy, it was a system first introduced from the franks therefore the first foundation of your concept is wrong.

Galileo one of the most famous persecuted happened to live in Pisa that was a republic anyway.

Giordano Bruno who shared copernicus vision got burned guess guess in the papal state.

You’re not getting what I’m saying: the original, true Christianity did not condone any of that. The heirarchal system that came about AFTER did. It wasn’t religion stomping on innovation, it was a government crushing the questioning of authority. True Christianity never did those things, it’s just that bad people twisted and contorted Christianity to justify it. If the laws of the original teachings of Jesus were properly followed, there would be no such atrocities. There would also be no such thing as a pope or a bishop or whatever, as those were just different rankings in a form of government—a government which sought to keep power for themselves. The means of doing so was religion. Keep in mind that in order to do this, however, they needed to corrupt religion first.

Ehm yes given that I work for the european union I happened to learn those during my studies and I dont understand what do you find so amazing about it, you will find the same things in treaties that regulated european nations everytime someone won a war and someone lost it.

The ottomans made one stupid mistake which was picking the wrong allied in WWI simple as that, unless you believe foreign politics and machiavelism are a conspiracy ofc.

Yeah but none of them said to each other “let’s have an agreement amongst all of us to make sure that this region will never rise up ever again and that we will always have control over it. Oh yeah and let’s also be sure to send people who look like them and talk like them so that we can destroy their religion too”.

Like, what?

There are no such things about europe attacking the muslim first unless you believe of course that those spreading religions do it for peaceful purposes, I mean you see conspiracies where exist real politics yet you believe that those following the coran in the middle age were there to peacefully promote their religion?

By word or sword all shall be converted...but yeah peaceful emissaries only willing to share their religion.

Hey listen, I have a big building in rome very huge all made of stone only lacking doors, I could send you for a good price.

I know that may seem hard to believe considering that Europe has always been backstabbing and screwing each other over, but not everyone is like that. Rome supported the Ghassanids after they killed Muslim emissaries, Persia did the same and even sent people from their territories in Yemen to order the arrest of Muhammad. Egypt accepted Islam, then other parts of North Africa decided to secede just because the dude in charge wanted power for himself. If you kill an emissary, that’s a declaration of war, especially back then. That would be like storming your country’s embassy and killing all the ambassadors. We almost had war with Iran for that same reason just a few months ago.

And as for Christianity, you are pretty much told you are not allowed to fight someone, not even in self-defense lol. The fact that the crusades existed in spite of this is a testament to the corruption of Christianity due to power hungry assholes lmao

So the good muslim invaded spain to save the spanish from an oppressive king, kinda remind me of fairy tales I was used to read while I was a kid...there was clearly no agenda behind it.

Anyway let me remind you that our conversation starts from the fact that religions create conflict...I dont really care which one of the christian or muslims were the "bad guys" back then, it still supports my point.

No, you’re misrepresenting the facts. Again. Spain also raided Morocco and was seeking expansion.

Regardless, what you don’t understand is that your statement that religions create conflict is blatantly false. King Roderic still would have been a piece of crap whether religion was there or not; the people would still hate him whether there was religion there or not; the people there would still have sought help from the people living there regardless of religion; and Morocco would eventually get sick of Iberia and attack them later on some point regardless of religion. These were battles that occurred where one side just happened to have a religion. It was not the cause of it. That would be like blaming someone for dying in a car accident because they drive a car, or blaming someone for getting a stroke because they have a brain. It’s a completely illogical fallacy to make.

Was syria christian or muslim? was palestine christian or muslim? listen its simpe to see who started it, all you have to do it see what it was and then what it became due to warfare.

If muslims invade sweden conquering it then swedes invade it back to reclaim it, who is the bad guy the one who started it or the one we see more often on tv?

Is the bad guy the one who invade a land to push his culture or a guy from the previous culture which try to claim it back?

If you try to mug a dude and then he kicks your ass and takes your money instead, you’re gonna complain about it? What kind of pathetic crap is that? You were the one who intended harm to him first. Yeah, you could say it was your money, but you tried to mug him and got beat for it. Now you’re gonna complain that he took your money after YOU tried to mug HIM?

If we’re really gonna go there, it probably wasn’t even your money to begin with either, you probably stole that money from some other people too. The same thing goes for those territories in the Middle East.

Just as an aside, the Muslims never really destroyed any churches or shrines or temples of worship from other religions as that was forbidden in war (unless the land was bought). I’m fairly certain the original Christianity was the same way too.

Hey dont get me wrong, Im not saying muslims are bad and christians are good...I believe anyone who does bad things is bad simple as that as much as I believe anyone who think and behave like a sheep is a sheep.

Thing is with me, I basically went from religion (born into it) to pretty much no religion and wondering if God even existed (whilst obviously quoting things like evolution and science and all that without even fully understanding its implications). Then I realized I only questioned the religious side and never questioned the non-religious side. That’s when things began to change for me and I started to really see things for how they are.

And look, I’m not gonna say everything that happened in religion was a great thing either, there’s shitty things followers of a religion did while believing it was good. I can shit on ISIS and Iran all day, I can shit on the crusades and the Pope all day, I can shit on rabbis and zionism all day. That doesn’t mean that the original message behind the religion was bad. If it were, nobody would follow it. Thing is, people aren’t perfect. That doesn’t mean we don’t have a perfect ideal though. We just don’t always adhere to that ideal because it just gets hard sometimes.

 

[Serenity]

Hard to believe you haven't ever felt something good. Nothing that has moved you?

I said that I get the metaphors. I have felt the overwhelming good many times, I get where religion is coming from. In the past I have been very close to accepting Christianity, but decided against it because every part of it was a personal experience occurring in my mind and body. There's still nothing supporting the existence of any god or sentient power over the universe, only our own psychological experiences (positive delusions perhaps).

The reason it's impossible to debate with an atheist about the existence of God is because no religious believer can provide the sort of evidence we need. Anecdotes and logical arguments doesn't prove sh!t, that all springs from the mind, further reinforcing the fact that the Bible was conceived and written by humans and God is a human construct.

Anyways, I do know what you're talking about. I do understand religious feelings and what thoughts religious people tie those feelings to, I don't tie my feelings to fantasy stories, otherwise I'm the same as everyone else. I also do pity those who have not found that good moving feeling.

Btw, I did research Buddhism for a while to find the feeling. No God or any bullsh!t dogmas, just a quick and straight path to what I assume most of us seek.

 

[Who Dares Win]

You’re not getting what I’m saying: the original, true Christianity did not condone any of that. The heirarchal system that came about AFTER did. It wasn’t religion stomping on innovation, it was a government crushing the questioning of authority. True Christianity never did those things, it’s just that bad people twisted and contorted Christianity to justify it. If the laws of the original teachings of Jesus were properly followed, there would be no such atrocities. There would also be no such thing as a pope or a bishop or whatever, as those were just different rankings in a form of government—a government which sought to keep power for themselves. The means of doing so was religion. Keep in mind that in order to do this, however, they needed to corrupt religion first.

Yeah but none of them said to each other “let’s have an agreement amongst all of us to make sure that this region will never rise up ever again and that we will always have control over it. Oh yeah and let’s also be sure to send people who look like them and talk like them so that we can destroy their religion too”.

Like, what?

I know that may seem hard to believe considering that Europe has always been backstabbing and screwing each other over, but not everyone is like that. Rome supported the Ghassanids after they killed Muslim emissaries, Persia did the same and even sent people from their territories in Yemen to order the arrest of Muhammad. Egypt accepted Islam, then other parts of North Africa decided to secede just because the dude in charge wanted power for himself. If you kill an emissary, that’s a declaration of war, especially back then. That would be like storming your country’s embassy and killing all the ambassadors. We almost had war with Iran for that same reason just a few months ago.

And as for Christianity, you are pretty much told you are not allowed to fight someone, not even in self-defense lol. The fact that the crusades existed in spite of this is a testament to the corruption of Christianity due to power hungry assholes lmao

No, you’re misrepresenting the facts. Again. Spain also raided Morocco and was seeking expansion.

Regardless, what you don’t understand is that your statement that religions create conflict is blatantly false. King Roderic still would have been a piece of crap whether religion was there or not; the people would still hate him whether there was religion there or not; the people there would still have sought help from the people living there regardless of religion; and Morocco would eventually get sick of Iberia and attack them later on some point regardless of religion. These were battles that occurred where one side just happened to have a religion. It was not the cause of it. That would be like blaming someone for dying in a car accident because they drive a car, or blaming someone for getting a stroke because they have a brain. It’s a completely illogical fallacy to make.

If you try to mug a dude and then he kicks your ass and takes your money instead, you’re gonna complain about it? What kind of pathetic crap is that? You were the one who intended harm to him first. Yeah, you could say it was your money, but you tried to mug him and got beat for it. Now you’re gonna complain that he took your money after YOU tried to mug HIM?

If we’re really gonna go there, it probably wasn’t even your money to begin with either, you probably stole that money from some other people too. The same thing goes for those territories in the Middle East.

Just as an aside, the Muslims never really destroyed any churches or shrines or temples of worship from other religions as that was forbidden in war (unless the land was bought). I’m fairly certain the original Christianity was the same way too.

Thing is with me, I basically went from religion (born into it) to pretty much no religion and wondering if God even existed (whilst obviously quoting things like evolution and science and all that without even fully understanding its implications). Then I realized I only questioned the religious side and never questioned the non-religious side. That’s when things began to change for me and I started to really see things for how they are.

And look, I’m not gonna say everything that happened in religion was a great thing either, there’s shitty things followers of a religion did while believing it was good. I can shit on ISIS and Iran all day, I can shit on the crusades and the Pope all day, I can shit on rabbis and zionism all day. That doesn’t mean that the original message behind the religion was bad. If it were, nobody would follow it. Thing is, people aren’t perfect. That doesn’t mean we don’t have a perfect ideal though. We just don’t always adhere to that ideal because it just gets hard sometimes.

I guess we agree to disagree, had this conversation already and surely not gonna waste time debating about religion or revised story.

Hope at least we agree about the fact that we would be all be better if anyone would stay in his own place without importing his people and religion without invitation.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

Even when proven wrong, people will only believe what they WANT to believe. Even if you show them the shortcomings in their thinking and reveal to them new perspectives they never considered and new knowledge they never knew about before, they will still only believe what they choose to believe.

And the critics will say: “If God knows all, why should I be blamed for disbelieving if He knows I will disbelieve?”

Because even if you were to see God Himself, and were left to choose whether or not you believe, you would still choose not to.

And they say: “But God was the One who made us.”

And when He did, did He not also make you with free will? How can you blame God for your own choices that you made knowingly and willfully?

And they say: “But if God knows everything we will do before we do it, is that really free will?”

God knowing everything Man will do does not mean He forces us to do it.

And they say: “Then why would He make us with free will if He knows some of us would remain in Hell for eternity?”

Because when given the choice, no man would choose to not have free will. Even you as you are now would not wish to lose sovereignty over your own self.



And when all is said and done, the only person you will have to blame for the consequences of your actions is yourself.

 

[corrector]

Most of you know that I'm engaged to a gorgeous, submissive and classy woman.

How long have you been dating for? How did you meet? Was she an answer to prayer?

Most of us are dealing with massively corrupted, mentally ill women, and trying to make the best of it.

No kidding.

While some look at Christianity as some kind of man-made religion created to control the masses, in fact I have found it to be the only thing on this earth that can take very flawed men and women and turn their lives (their inner core) around tangibly. One of the first things one notices (in a true believer) is the death of feminism and the restoration of women's acceptance of men's authority in this world.

That is because the spirit of Jezebel is more infectious than Covid-19 and most women are infected by it. The Lithe devil will never allow a woman to submit to a man. The exorcist Bob Larson has encountered these demons in women and it turns out there is a story behind them. Something to do with Eve, the mother of the human race, this succubus devil was jealous of her and wanted to substitute Eve or something like that. The reality is virtually all women out there are potentially demon possessed by Jezebel, Lithe, or some other sex demon and, in some true Christians these type of demons may fade off into the background and recesses of their newly converted soul, but at times, they still raise their ugly heads and the afflicted lady may need an exorcism to rid themselves out of it once and for all.

But for sure, when someone's saved, they are no longer under the influence of the Prince of the Power of the Air, which works on the hearts of those who are walking in disobedience, so, demon or no demon, a change will take place to start the process of being conformed into the image of Christ and away from being conformed to the world.

My lady and I are so compatible and have so few problems precisely and only because we have submitted ourselves to Jesus' teachings and we try to live by those principles. If I wasn't a well-rounded Christian she wouldn't look twice at me, nor I at her.

That's great! So you can't divorce each other.

except for the sleeping around part,

It's good that you have a successful marriage and therefore have clout that people can listen to you so you don't sound like you are crying "sour grapes". But, assuming God help put you and her together, how would this board help if God destined you to be together with her anyway?

My faith in the Almighty has indeed turned this hopeless loser into a respected leader. It's definitely not of my own accord.

Can you elaborate in more detail about this experience? Did you have a specific born-again experience or encounter with Jesus where you were changed or born-again anew instantaneously or was it a process? If it was instantaneous then when were you saved? How did you get saved? What are you doing Ministry-wise? What type of church are you going to? What exactly made you a hopeless loser and how would you characterize your life as one before you were born-again, and what made you a respected leader and how would you characterize your life after?