Judaism, Islam, Christianity. ALL DUMB
(media.conspiracies.win)
Comments (35)
sorted by:
You have to get a concordance and study guides to see the cultural relevance to each of these stories. You wont get the depth of the text based on face value.
The god of the old testament seems schizophrenic
I will flood you! Wait, sorry I flooded you
Sacrifice your son! No wait, I was just testing your loyalty.
I am all knowing! Don't eat this apple. Oh shit you ate the apple but I already knew you were going to do that because I'm omnipotent and omnipresent
Long story short, if God tells you to do it, you do it.
Mind you the same type of people behind Christianity is behind Communism. Make no mistake I didn't mean American Evangelists and Protestants who might as well as be Gnostics. You guys all know what happened in the Medival Dark Ages.
Then you don't understand Him yet, keep reading and you can even ask God to help you read better.
Every time Christian in debate:
Read the boooooook
You don't understand deeeeee boooook
Lol I did read it. The old testament God telling Jews to genocide women and children is the same God of new testament saying turn the cheek?
What's your response?
You need to read deeeeee book.
I did read the book. I applied critical thinking. You just blindly dismiss blatant contradictions.
Christ-cucks always think their religion is “de best!” and are smug in their perceived superiority. You have to employ cult-removal techniques to get them to start to realize anything.
What contradictions?
NO, ONLY ISLAM IS DUMB
Hitchens said it best.
You cannot claim that you have free will, when the insitution you pledge alleigance to is the antithesis of free will.
The conditioning required to get people to believe a religion where you are assuredly deprived of free will for dogma where you can be sent to hell for bragging is how they will also get us into beliving that changing sexes is like changing clothes in the future.
How do you pledge something sincerely without doing so freely?
My point is the Christians who think that they're the real free thinkers and truthers are just as controlled as the LGBT agenda crowd.
Your point is wrong.
Ones consent to pledge to the suggestion of others...tempts one to ignore ones free will of choice for the suggested choices of others.
Ignorance allows one to do freely, while lacking to comprehend doing it. Without self discernment; ones free will of choice will be tempted to follow the suggested choices by others.
Perhaps you misunderstand? To pledge is to promise and it would be hollow without having the free will to choose, this entails decision and reasoning we are freely able to do and then decide if we want to pledge ourselves to such. I have found only one perfect to serve and that's King Jesus but everyone is free to pledge themselves to what 'they will' apparently in this fallen place, I much prefer God's will, that Guy is way smarter than me.
Understanding implies ones consent to "stand under" the suggested information by others; which in return tempts one to "miss" perceivable inspiration by ignoring it.
To be implies being (life) send forwards (inception towards death) hence in need to resist the temptation thereof. Others suggest progressivism to tempt one to consent to move towards suggested outcomes, while ignoring perceivable origin.
That represents the foundation for Bank & Trust aka positing ones free will of choice, while depositing it to the will of others aka choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law, which the few industrialized as RELIGION (Latin religio; to bind anew).
Nature gives (inception) and takes (death) everything from everyone (life)...others exploit ones ignorance of that.
"of choice" implies out of perceivable balance; "to choose" implies towards suggests outcomes.
Hold your breath and ongoing (inception towards death) teaches temporary (life) that balance overrules choice. One can only respond as choice to balance (momentum of motion)...choosing outcomes tempts one to ignore origin.
FREE (implies within dominance) WILL (aka want implies within need) OF (implies out of) CHOICE (implies within balance).
a) others suggest "without" to tempt one to ignore being (life) within (inception towards death).
b) HOL'LOW, adjective - "containing an empty space"...aka suggested nihilism (nothing) as inversion of perceivable WHOLE (everything). Consider energy (inherent/internal power) as whole and each partial within reacting to it...
wanting vs not wanting suggested, while ignoring need to adapt to perceivable...that represents reasoning. Always a conflict; no matter which side one chooses and it can never be won; because both sides within any conflict of reason are reasoning against each other about a suggestion from a 3rd party outside.
Example...pro-life vs pro-choice represents reasoning about suggested "abortion". Those who suggest abortion, don't reason against others about it, they divide others through reasoning (talmudic reasoning) against each other, while utilizing consent to ignore perceivable for suggested by both sides to fuel the suggested.
Pro-life vs pro-choice reasoning tempts one to ignore that LIFE equals CHOICE. One cannot be pro-life without choosing to be and one cannot be pro-choice without being alive. A deliberate contradiction.
Choosing want (suggested) over need (perceivable) results in a conflict of reason (want vs not want).
Example: wanting (cola) vs not wanting (pepsi) suggested tempts one to ignore perceivable need...thirst.
One cannot find perfect (complete) while being ONE aka partial within whole. Finding implies "to meet", which tempts one to ignore that nature sets itself apart, hence from whole (perceivable) into partials (perceiving).
As for only...if all represents one in energy; then "there can be only one" aka "all for one and one for all" aka "alone" (all in one).
Free will of choice can only exist at the center of surrounding balance. Each one represents center (partial) of surrounding (whole) aka EN'ERGY, noun [Gr. work.] - "internal or inherent power".
Ones consent to want (will) suggestions by others (deity) tempts one to submit willingly to the will of others, hence viewing reality through the lens of submission to a will higher than self.
From a christian perspective: choice at the center of balance implies "as above; so below"...
Those who consent to "patris et filii et spiritus sancti" are tempted to ignore "in nomine" aka those who suggest "in the name of". Consenting to RELIGION (Latin religio; to bind anew) tempts one to bind self by consent to suggestion of another. This bond is being distracted from by the suggested religion.
Both believers and disbelievers (while reasoning against each other) view perceivable (reality) through the lens of suggested (fiction), while ignoring the bond among choice aka the contract law with the merchants of temptation.
a) "free will of choice" represents proposition (thesis) of a balance based system (need/want).
b) consenting to suggested "free will" (without "of choice") tempts one into imbalance (want vs not want), hence into opposition (antithesis).
c) consent (by choice of oneself) to suggestions (by choice of others) tempts one to ignore being free will "of choice"...
k
God told Isaiah to kill his own son and he almost did.
Christcucks: "But he didn't! Because god is so loving and merciful!"
Like holy fuck the mental gymnastics these people to support their civic nationalist religion.
He showed Abraham how He was gonna save the world by His own son dying,(Jesus Christ, heard of Him?) foreshadowing dude, this is how God had to talk to us for us to understand Him. Edit: also Isaac was not a baby, he was a man and was also as willing as his father, check yo facts!
Ah yes, God had to fuck around for four thousand years before sending a piece of himself to sacrifice himself to himself to save everyone from his own wrath he doomed them all too, but they weren't subjected to that wrath until they were first told about it by his missionaries so they were actually better off not hearing his story and remaining unchristian savages. You may as well talk about thetans or Muhammad or Nirvana for all it matters. It's all a story with lots of twists and turns to keep people enthralled in mysticism.
Christians can't agree on which denomination is correct, how salvation is obtained, or much of anything else. What they can agree on is how much they love niggers so long as they're Jesus loving niggers.
Yeah I guess He tried everything else before He had to do that, eh, wouldn't you? Truly, I don't have the answer but I do know that God is good and perfect so I default to His knowledge, that's all.
I don't understand denominational stuff myself. Salvation is obtained by recognizing Jesus Christ is God and then pursuing a relationship with Him, following Him, as it were.
All men are made by God.
He even tried killing all of the wicked people and starting over with Noah. That didn't work either.
Catholic prophecy says that Satan will take over before Jesus comes back, which means a lot of Catholics are in on this bullshit to make the world worse on purpose because they think that is helping "God's plan".
There's so much toxic bullshit that makes Christianity dangerous for civilization. It was surprisingly good at perpetuating itself, but that's the power of collectivism versus individualism. Christianity is a collectivist ideology and it's success does not mean it is the correct one. Only that it overpowered more individualist ones.
Niggers aren't men. They never invented writing, sailing, agriculture, or even the wheel, but tons of Christians keep thinking they have souls that need to be saved.
Christians were happily practicing slavery in the early US. And we're still paying the price for it a hundred and sixty years after it ended.
Do Christians oppose LGBTQ or do they merely grumble about it? Catholic Church seems to be openly pushing the groomer agenda.
See this is exactly how they convince us changing genders is like changing clothes in the future.
Abraham wasn't jewish. Jews come from the tribe of Judah, which Abraham pre dated. Not all Hebrews were jewish, and they certainly weren't all related to the jews of today.