Is Peeing on Jesus Really Funny?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
So, this makes killing religious people because they are not atheists, not really killing them because they are religious how?
If they were atheists they would have lived, but because they were religious they were killed, period.

And I am so glad the soviets gave it some thought before they blew them away. That makes it better. And when is killing a whole swath of people, not about control? I mean seriously.[/quote]

Once again…spin for Africa.

Once again… they killed lots of people, religious AND non-religious alike because they were…

“detrimental to socialist reconstruction.”

once again…They were not killed specifically “because they were not atheists”.

“If they were Atheists they would have lived…” BULL.SHIT

Once again…atheists were killed too.

The only pre-requisite for being killed in Mao’s communist China was him deeming you not being part of Mao’s communist China. or deemed to be a hinderence to it’s progress…

NOT secifically because you were not atheist.

As far as I know, he did not round up all the atheists and non-religious into a containment pen somewhere so as to spare them.
[/quote]

So you are denying actual real history of real actual anti religious campaigns were carried out end religions and kill their practitioners.

If you have to revise history to make your point, you may not have a point.

302

[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Correct, you have no scripture but you do have dogma. For instance, do you not believe that ‘Religion is the opiate of the masses’? [/quote]

WTF? Now your saying atheists all adhere to a Marxist doctrine?

Ha ha.

The original quote from Karl Marx is “Religion is the opium of the people”
BTW.

Hey why not go the whole hog and say that they do have scriptures and that those are the Communist Manifesto and the Neue Rheinische Zeitung?

Or perhaps his mate Engel’s contributions to feminist theory or his book The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.

[/quote]

Hmmm, sounds like you know it better than I do…

303

[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
I think Pat makes a good point. While it’s likely untrue that atheism per se has caused more deaths than religion per se, there’s no question that people have been persecuted and killed by atheists specifically for having religious beliefs. Had they been fellow atheists, they would have been left alone.[/quote]

These people were killed by Communists for having religious beliefs as they veiwed them as being the tool of Western colonialism.
The communnits killed anyone who got in their way.
The range for agnostics and non-religious in China was/is about 40%-60%, atheists about 14%. They were killed as well if found to be “detrimental to socialist reconstruction.”

The Communists under Mao had no Qualms about killing atheist, agnostic, taoist,christian, confucian, non-religious, animist, and Shenist alike.

For political aims…not religious ones.[/quote]

So like historical facts mean nothing? Yes, it’s true it was a political agenda and a political policy to eradicate religion by eradicating the religious. Ergo, they killed believers because they were believers and not atheists…
This is a matter of plain stubborn historical fact. No amount of spin is going to make this not a fact.[/quote]

I got accused of shovelling bullshit a while back…but some of y’alls shovels are about as large as the front scoop on a bulldozer.

Your “historical facts” have more spin from your bias than an f5 tornado.

“Yes, it’s true it was a political agenda and a political policy to eradicate religion by eradicating the religious.”

Yes, this was ONE policy amongst many…not the main overiding policy of the communist party at the time and not specific to the religious…like they were all special and stuff…they tried to get rid of EVERBODY that stood in their way.

Part of your spin seems to be to completely ignore what I just posted about them killing atheists and agnostics and non-religious people indiscriminately along with the religious because they were…

“detrimental to socialist reconstruction.”

Not specifically because they were believers.

You are trying hard to make it sound like a wholly religious persecution. Mao veiwed organised religion as antithetical to the communnist movement…but also veiwed intellectuals, teachers, etc. etc. and a few million other people this way as well…WHO WEREN’T RELIGIOUS.

[quote]pat wrote:
Ergo, they killed believers because they were believers and not atheists…
[/quote]

They killed atheists too…why? because they “believed” in atheism?
That is an absurd statement.

Why would Atheists kill other atheists for religious reasons?
[/quote]

My historical facts? Wasn’t sure I owned them. Apparently history ain’t your forte. Don’t take my word for it, look it up. Go to you local library and just pull up any encyclopedia, seriously do some research. In anti religious campaigns they were targeting relgious people and clergy. Oh fuck why bother. Just do some research before you spout equal opportunity murder horseshit.
You got you piddly revisionist history, my family lived through it ans saw it first hand. Bet your mama never looked down the barrel of a Soviet tank gun that was aimed at her.

304

T - hurr durr you mean atheists persecuted us at a couple of points during history and it was completely unprovoked

A - But you theists have been persecuting not only atheists, but anyone with a different belief system for the majority of human history.

T - omg you are such a liar you heathens and your revisionist history hurr durr

A - …

305

[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:

It’s all very well to plead “but everyone else does it”, but what sticks in everyone else’s craw is being preached to about moral behaviour and moral codes from a higher authority by people who don’t follow them.

[/quote]

It’s better than you all, who have no higher authority, remaining damn near silent on moral behavior when children are strikingly fatherless. Those children, eventually, joining the ever increasing masses of elderly. Elderly relying on the tax production of a shrinking percent of workers produced from low marriage and fertility rates. Indeed, if it weren’t for us, there’d be nothing but silence.

You, along with the rest of us moderns, are living off the banked social capital of our ‘prudish,’ moralistic, and more religious forefathers. Not the other way around. And when the increasingly secular west has spent it all off, and the programs begin drying up, your descendents will return to our churches, and to institutions such as marriage. And, to concepts such as shame, prudence, and even sin.

306

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

It’s all very well to plead “but everyone else does it”, but what sticks in everyone else’s craw is being preached to about moral behaviour and moral codes from a higher authority by people who don’t follow them.

[/quote]

It’s better than you all, who have no higher authority, remaining damn near silent on moral behavior when children are strikingly fatherless, getting pregnant before they receive a diploma they might not be able to read. Those children, eventually, joining the ever increasing masses of elderly. Elderly relying on the tax production of a shrinking percent of workers produced from low marriage and fertility ratea. Indeed, if it weren’t for us, there’d be nothing but silence.

You, along with the rest of us monders, are living off the banked social capital of our ‘prudish,’ moralistic, and more religious forefathers. Not the other way around. And when the increasingly secular west has spent it all off, and the programs begin drying up, your descendents will return to our churches, and to institutions such as marriage. And, to concepts such as shame, prudence, and even sin.[/quote]

Just wanted to clarify that I was NOT the author quoted above. It was Cheeky_Kea.

307

[quote]Makavali wrote:
T - hurr durr you mean atheists persecuted us at a couple of points during history and it was completely unprovoked

A - But you theists have been persecuting not only atheists, but anyone with a different belief system for the majority of human history.

T - omg you are such a liar you heathens and your revisionist history hurr durr

A - …[/quote]

That was just pitiful mak…

308

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

It’s all very well to plead “but everyone else does it”, but what sticks in everyone else’s craw is being preached to about moral behaviour and moral codes from a higher authority by people who don’t follow them.

[/quote]

It’s better than you all, who have no higher authority, remaining damn near silent on moral behavior when children are strikingly fatherless, getting pregnant before they receive a diploma they might not be able to read. Those children, eventually, joining the ever increasing masses of elderly. Elderly relying on the tax production of a shrinking percent of workers produced from low marriage and fertility ratea. Indeed, if it weren’t for us, there’d be nothing but silence.

You, along with the rest of us monders, are living off the banked social capital of our ‘prudish,’ moralistic, and more religious forefathers. Not the other way around. And when the increasingly secular west has spent it all off, and the programs begin drying up, your descendents will return to our churches, and to institutions such as marriage. And, to concepts such as shame, prudence, and even sin.[/quote]

Just wanted to clarify that I was NOT the author quoted above. It was Cheeky_Kea.
[/quote]

Ahh, fixed.

309

[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:

Ahh, fixed.[/quote]

Thanks.

:wink:

310

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:

It’s all very well to plead “but everyone else does it”, but what sticks in everyone else’s craw is being preached to about moral behaviour and moral codes from a higher authority by people who don’t follow them.

[/quote]

It’s better than you all, who have no higher authority, remaining damn near silent on moral behavior when children are strikingly fatherless. Those children, eventually, joining the ever increasing masses of elderly. Elderly relying on the tax production of a shrinking percent of workers produced from low marriage and fertility rates. Indeed, if it weren’t for us, there’d be nothing but silence.

You, along with the rest of us moderns, are living off the banked social capital of our ‘prudish,’ moralistic, and more religious forefathers. Not the other way around. And when the increasingly secular west has spent it all off, and the programs begin drying up, your descendents will return to our churches, and to institutions such as marriage. And, to concepts such as shame, prudence, and even sin.[/quote]

Shocking as it may be, atheists/agnostics can teach their children positive social values without needing to believe in a supernatural being. As an agnostic father, I strongly support education and sexual responsibility in my children. I don’t want them to be prematurely pregnant, ignorant, or on the dole any more than any religious parent would.

311

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
T - hurr durr you mean atheists persecuted us at a couple of points during history and it was completely unprovoked

A - But you theists have been persecuting not only atheists, but anyone with a different belief system for the majority of human history.

T - omg you are such a liar you heathens and your revisionist history hurr durr

A - …[/quote]

That was just pitiful mak…[/quote]

No, it’s true. All you can do is bring up the same shit over and over. That is what’s pitiful.

I see Chris constantly talking about how the Church will “fight back” and all kinds of shit, and you sound surprised that after centuries of religious stupidity that it built up and there was violent backlash?

Here’s a protip: when you stifle freedom and knowledge, people get violent. You are free to have all the unprotected sex and deny any part of science that disagrees with your fairy tales all you want, but don’t try and have it legislated into law.

No, actually you can do one better! Kick all the dirty agnostics and atheists out of America! Send them to other countries, and you can have your theocracy! It’s only a ~16% loss to your population, and once you lose those pesky planned parenthood people you can replace them no sweat!

312

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
T - hurr durr you mean atheists persecuted us at a couple of points during history and it was completely unprovoked

A - But you theists have been persecuting not only atheists, but anyone with a different belief system for the majority of human history.

T - omg you are such a liar you heathens and your revisionist history hurr durr

A - …[/quote]

That was just pitiful mak…[/quote]

No, it’s true. All you can do is bring up the same shit over and over. That is what’s pitiful.
[/quote]
So? It’s the truth get over it. You repeat the same shit over and over too. You always whine about how ‘mind controlling’ and violent religious people are. So it’s only fair to show that they ponderence of violence and strife in the world was done by non-religious and that their belief in their lack of belief is culpapble in the violent acts.

So? Yall didn’t have to murder 300 million people to get your point across, geez.

[quote]
Here’s a protip: when you stifle freedom and knowledge, people get violent. You are free to have all the unprotected sex and deny any part of science that disagrees with your fairy tales all you want, but don’t try and have it legislated into law.

No, actually you can do one better! Kick all the dirty agnostics and atheists out of America! Send them to other countries, and you can have your theocracy! It’s only a ~16% loss to your population, and once you lose those pesky planned parenthood people you can replace them no sweat![/quote]

I have been one of the biggest advocators of separation of church and state. I don’t believe in theocracy of legislation of faith based laws ever. Likewise I don’t want atheists eliminating anything that can that’s even remotely religious just because they hate religion and religious people.

I think you are fighting a made-up war.

313

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Here’s a protip: when you stifle freedom and knowledge, people get violent.[/quote]

Much more complicated than that.

The CC probably did more for the development of the sciences than any other organization on this planet.

On her own terms, true, but when has that ever not been true of any organization.

314

[quote]pat wrote:
If this guy is truly honest, then let’s see him give the same treatment to a picture of Mohamed. He’s a liar. It is offensive. [/quote]

Muslims believe in Jesus as well as Muhammed, peace be upon them. This is an insult to Islam as well. I just saw this, and I gotta say, I’m amazed that there are christians that tolerate this mockery, especially knowing that Christians claim Jesus, peace be upon him, is divine.

Ideally, whoever did it should be executed.

"And if you were to ask them, they would say: ‘Surely we were
only jesting and playing.’ Say: ‘Was it Allah, His Verses,
or His Messenger you were mocking? Make no mistake,
verily you have disbelieved after your belief.’ "

315

[quote]Mr. Zero wrote:
Ideally, whoever did it should be executed.
[/quote]

So are you one of the minority of extremist Muslims, or are you in the mainstream? I can never figure it out.

316

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Mr. Zero wrote:
Ideally, whoever did it should be executed.
[/quote]

So are you one of the minority of extremist Muslims, or are you in the mainstream? I can never figure it out. [/quote]

Neither.
Extremist would mean trying to incite all the people to kill him, in other words, ‘taking matters into your own hands’, and thats NOT allowed. What is allowed, and required, is that one informs officials of what the person did.

These issues are in the hands of the leader of the country, he does whatever he feels is sufficient, and if that means the death penalty for someone that is so filthy that he ‘pees on Jesus’ peace be upon him, then so be it.

317

Yeah… well this thread just turned weird.

No he doesn’t deserve to be executed.

318

[quote]Mr. Zero wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Mr. Zero wrote:
Ideally, whoever did it should be executed.
[/quote]

So are you one of the minority of extremist Muslims, or are you in the mainstream? I can never figure it out. [/quote]

Neither.
Extremist would mean trying to incite all the people to kill him, in other words, ‘taking matters into your own hands’, and thats NOT allowed. What is allowed, and required, is that one informs officials of what the person did.

These issues are in the hands of the leader of the country, he does whatever he feels is sufficient, and if that means the death penalty for someone that is so filthy that he ‘pees on Jesus’ peace be upon him, then so be it.

[/quote]

So might makes right? What if the leader of the country is Ghadafi or Castro or Hussein?

Killing someone for insulting your religious beliefs is insane. This is why religion, of any flavor, can be so dangerous. People have the capacity to justify any atrocity in the name of their god, because by definition if their god wills it, it must be good and just.

319

[quote]Mr. Zero wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Mr. Zero wrote:
Ideally, whoever did it should be executed.
[/quote]

So are you one of the minority of extremist Muslims, or are you in the mainstream? I can never figure it out. [/quote]

Neither.
Extremist would mean trying to incite all the people to kill him, in other words, ‘taking matters into your own hands’, and thats NOT allowed. What is allowed, and required, is that one informs officials of what the person did.

These issues are in the hands of the leader of the country, he does whatever he feels is sufficient, and if that means the death penalty for someone that is so filthy that he ‘pees on Jesus’ peace be upon him, then so be it.
[/quote]

Leader of the country? If the leader of a country would have someone executed because they insulted religion or faith then that ‘leader’ is a psychopath who is unfit to lead and may be the one who needs to head to the gallows. The fact that you are complacently agreeable to putting someone to death because they were offensive is bothersome too. Being offensive should not carry the death penalty.
I would be happy if the exhibit hall would have had the decency to not display it as ‘art’, in that no excrement should ever be accepted as art because it’s nasty.
If I can vomit on a canvas and have that considered art then the word essentially has no meaning.

320

[quote]Mr. Zero wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Mr. Zero wrote:
Ideally, whoever did it should be executed.
[/quote]

So are you one of the minority of extremist Muslims, or are you in the mainstream? I can never figure it out. [/quote]

Neither.
Extremist would mean trying to incite all the people to kill him, in other words, ‘taking matters into your own hands’, and thats NOT allowed.
[/quote]

And yet, just now, you suggested it.

Please explain to me WHY the commission of an act that could be considered “offensive” justifies the death of the offender.