Moved BACK to the top until it runs out of steam!
I was always told that Christianity was a monotheistic religion but I want to challenge that because clearly it is not. First the definitions:
- No Gods – Atheism
- One God – Monotheism
- Two or more Gods – Polytheism
First, I’m not even going through the “Holy Ghost” thing except to say that “Trinity” means 3 and 3 > 1.
Assuming that:
- God is a deity
- Jesus is a deity
- Jesus and God are individuals
Then God and Jesus are two and 2 > 1.
Therefore Christianity is polytheism.
Polytheism isn’t a matter of belief. I personally am a Realist and I don’t believe any of it. However when one objectively classifies religious beliefs based on the number of gods, I’m counting two. Some would count three, but either is greater than one.
The reference is the Bible. According to the stories Jesus and God are two individuals. God was in the Old Testament, Jesus was not. Jesus was born of a virgin, God was not. Jesus addresses God as a separate individual. They have different stories. They have different roles. That talk to each other the way separate people talk.
The bottom line is – they are both deities and they are two individuals. Therefore Christianity is a polytheistic religion.
Na, christian women are fat pigs, so that will work.
PoliticallyVeryCorrect #331
“ah get lost, im done with you already, youre not even fun to read or fun to make fun of. Total loser. Get lost!”
That’s Cool!
if a christian would try to force a jewish to eat excellent and best possible pork chop, would it be considered antisemitism?
Yes, because the christian knows the Jew cannot eat the pork, but remember if the Jewish persons life is in danger he is allowed to eat the pork. You can violate the Law if life if threatened. FYI 🙂
#335 thx (I know about exception 😉
but
not every Christian knows the Jew cannot eat the pork, why would they, they are not interested in jewish theories.
so this is problematic then?
No, not really. It’s only problematic to christians who are obsessed with the lie of christ. More power to em’ as long as they stay away from me 🙂 and the truth 🙂
>>“sometimes offensive
OK, so it’s sometimes offensive to those who are so politically correct that it makes yer teeth hurt. For most people, though, it’s just a politically correct alternative to “Oriental”; one which means exactly the same thing. People with “slanty eyes” (gasp) who are from somewhere out in the land where the sun rises. If you object to calling people by a name that sorta/ kinda describes where they’re from and how they look, why would “Asian” be any better?
>>nope Why do people keep saying
>>that. lol
I don’t know about other people, but I say it because Washington State (and Seattle in particular) is the most rigid bastion of political correctness I have ever encountered. And you sound just like people I know from Seattle. I also understand that, in its continuing effort to enforce the thought patterns of the overlords on taxpayers there, they have “outlawed” the word “oriental”. I just hope they don’t have to auction off any rugs.
>>Just like many people who call
>>themselves “niggers” happen to be
>>African America
I understand that they are also sometimes African-Something-Else-Hyphenated, like African-Jamaican or even African-African. However, they always use it in the “Hey G, what up dawg? Imma fuck that badonkadonk tonight” sense. The “Asian” folks in the Orient call themselves Orientals when speaking English at home, in church, at school, wherever. It’s not ‘hood, like people calling themselves nigger is; it’s not outside the mainstream at all.
>>So do you call Iranians “Orientals” >>How about Egyptians? Or Afghani’s.
I’d be as likely to call them “Orientals” as I would be to call Siberians or Bengalis or Indians “Asians”.
Face it, none of the names for describing a group of people who all share distinctive facial characteristics is perfect. “Asians” is not one whit more accurate than “Orientals”, and Orientals has a well-understood meaning. If the non-Orientals among us could just come down from the pulpit and realize that nothing offensive is meant by the term, we’d all be good to go.
haha trying to sway the answer I see 😉
your so-called truth is not my truth, so lets try be specific, anyways christian mostly don’t know any jewish food preferences, so it would be wrong example anyways.
ok lets try again:
give me any example of any daily christians actions that affect jewish (beside the fact that they are christians lol) and if possible to be considered antisemtic?
>>Na, christian women are fat pigs,
>>so that will work.
You’re hanging out with the wrong class of Christian woman, Padre. I know plenty of ’em, and not a one is a fat pig.
And they’re not neurotic bitches, either, which is a big plus!
#340 of course, why else so many Jews are with shiksas 😉 I bet our rabbi dreams of one or two all the time 😀
You question was given an answer, and your “truth” is nothing I’m afraid of, but anyway…evangelism is anti-semitic, and oh do I hate the evangelists. Anyway, all you have to do is point christian scripture to show the lie that is christianity. I love their bible! It’s my most cited source to show how they are living a lie! 🙂
#342 ok lets take your “antisemitic evangelism” as an example, albeit its not too good one since christians don’t pester you all the time and everywhere, all you have to do is just tell them to f* off when they knock to your door on sunday morning, right Maestro Rabbi?
I still want to know why so many Jews are with shiksas? Is it that Jewish men like fat pigs, or could it be that they are NOT fat pigs? Only two options here…
you obv have never lived in a place like Louisiana, or Mississippi or Texas…they do pester all the time, and no its not that simple. I prefer to leave them crying outside my door…left with nothing but their own questions about their “messiah”…I want them to see that any scripture they throw at me to try and change my traditions and my faith has a scripture that refutes it…like I said I love their bible 😉 Anyway, thats my stance, make the missionaries hurt!
>>you obv have never lived in a
>>place like Louisiana, or
>>Mississippi or Texas…
Thank God!
I figure any religion that imagines there God objects to a ham & cheese sandwich or shellfish or a succulent pork chop or loin must be populated by lunatics anyway, hm?
Ha, as opposed to a religion that thinks G-d came down, inpregnanted a virgin, gave birth to himself, talks to himself, prays to himself, was killed, had himself raise himself from the dead and went up to heaven to be with himself is sane? hmmm 😉
#345 I cannot agree with you more 😀
I hate missionaries waking me up at 8AM on sunday morning 😉
Anyways, what would you say and suggest to be done if the evangelist missionaries would try to sneak and preach upon every jew almost everywhere, in every part and corner of the country, and it would be sanctioned by government (maybe not officially, but govt would not interfere at all either)?
Mr. Mustard
“OK, so it’s sometimes offensive ”
You conventionally passed over this
“Encarta states when the term is used as a noun it is considered ” a highly offensive term for somebody from East Asia””
“For most people, though, it’s just a politically correct alternative to “Oriental”; one which means exactly the same thing. People with “slanty eyes” (gasp) who are from somewhere out in the land where the sun rises.”
Exactly! Now you seem to get it. It is a racist term
“I just hope they don’t have to auction off any rugs.”
Well I guess you don’t.
“I’d be as likely to call them “Orientals” as I would be to call Siberians or Bengalis or Indians “Asians”.”
So it is ok to lump the ones with the “Slanty eyes” but not the one from the middle east? Why is that? Is it because they all look the same?
“Face it, none of the names for describing a group of people who all share distinctive facial characteristics is perfect.”
“Face it, none of the names for describing a group of people who all share distinctive facial characteristics is perfect. ”
Right and that is why you shouldn’t use them.
“Asians” is not one whit more accurate than “Orientals””
Accuracy has nothing to do with it. If you want to be accurate refer to them by their country of origin. If you don’t know then Asian is the best you can do.
“and Orientals has a well-understood meaning”
It sure does!!! It is a racist one.
“If the non-Orientals among us could just come down from the pulpit and realize that nothing offensive is meant by the term, we’d all be good to go”
I am part Chinese so. I guess that would make me an “Oriental and I find the term offensive and so do allot of others
I will post this again just so you cant say you didn’t see it. You can argue all you want BUT YOU ARE STILL WRONG!!!
“Random House’s Guide to Sensitive Language states “Other words (e.g., Oriental, colored) are outdated or inaccurate.” This Guide to Sensitive Language suggests the use of “Asian or more specific designation such as Pacific Islander, Chinese American, [or] Korean.” [4] Merriam-Webster describes the term as “sometimes offensive,”[5] Encarta states when the term is used as a noun it is considered ” a highly offensive term for somebody from East Asia”
Thats why I’m here…and people like me, the government does not interfere now so the world you are thinking of is not that far off. Groups like Jews for Jews and other anti-evangelist groups have been created and fight the fight I have taken up. Dont fret, us Jews are well protected! 🙂
On that note I would love to continue talking about my anti-christian mission and christ bashing please feel free to come to my blog anytime and browse through my anti-evangelist posts. For right now I must be off to bed since I have class in the morn…the life of a rabbinical student right? It’s been fun.
#350 oh I know that well 🙂
but according to your answer, it seems that christians should create Christians-for-Christians, muslims – a Muuslims-for-Muslims, atheists – Atheists-for-Atheists and so on “protection groups” right now, immediately actually, to protect themselves from jews?
#351 oh too bad you leave again in the best moment 😀
because according to your own words, all non-jews should right now start “antijewish” protection groups to get rid of jewish kosher tax every time i – not jewish but the atheist! – am forced to pay when i buy i.e. any dairy product, and its the same with christians, muslims, buddhists, evangelists, and everyone else in the country but the farmers 😀
>>You conventionally passed over this
No, I actively rejected it. Encarta is a Micro$oft product (’nuff said right there), and they’re from the Political Correctness Kapital of the World, Seattle.
>>Exactly! Now you seem to get it. It is a
>>racist term
You’re losing me there, son. It’s “racist” to point out that people with slanty eyes have slanty eyes? I realize “slanty eyes” might not cut the mustard in your social circle, but it’s a distinctive facial characteristic, and to deny that is every bit as nonsensical as denying you’re a Jew. Give it up, dude! It’s what they look like. Is calling redheads “redheads” or bald people “bald people” dehumanizing too? Good gosh and golly. If you cared more about war and starvation and genocide and LESS about how we refer to a physically distinct group of people (who really DO need a name), we’d be a whole lot better off.
>>So it is ok to lump the ones with the
>>“Slanty eyes” but not the one from the
>>middle east? Why is that? Is it because they
>>all look the same?
Fuck yes! What’s the big problem? We call people with red hair “redheads”, bald people are called “bald people”; what the fuck is the problem?
>>If you want to be accurate refer to them
>>by their country of origin.
If their country of origen were known, that’s just what I’d do. But for census, demographic, medical, and other purposes, it’s useful to have a more global term that encompasses all people with that distinctive facial characteristic.
>>If you don’t know then Asian is the best
>>you can do.
No, maybe we could call them “tribbles” or “bonkmajoojas”, or make up some other term that doesn’t really describe them, but at least it doesn’t have the distracting baggage that “Asian” does, with a lot of people belonging to the group who don’t get called Asians.
>>It sure does!!! It is a racist one.
You must live in a real snakepit of hatred, distrust, and racism. If I say “Oriental”, it’s without a racist thought in my brain.\
As to your quote from the “Sensitive Language” handbook, I saw it the first time. I just wanted to leave you with some dignity, so I dind’t mention it.
>>Thats why I’m here…
Oh. I thought you were here to tell us why so many Jewish guys have shiksa women.
Enquiring minds want to know.
Mustard leave the dumb diskhead alone.
Or just give him best example out there – a government issue US visa application, where foreigner have to describe their ethnicity (yes, “oriental” is acceptable if you are obviously asian with unknown ancestor’s origins) and a skin color too (yes, it has to be “yellow” for oriental/asian – unles s/he is other skin color).
If it ain’t racist for full of politically correct shit government, it can’t be racist for him 😉
My parents tried to raise me to be Christian but by the time I was 4 years old I could see it was nothing but a pack of lies, nonsense and bullshit. I keep wondering why it takes the rest of you so long to catch on. No part of it is true and the only part of it that is real is the hypocrisy.
Back a bit to the issue of Christian polytheism, my explanation for the “Holy Ghost” within the Trinity Godhead concept is simple. He doesn’t really have a well-defined job except to cast a tie-breaking vote when God the Father (Yahweh) and God the Son (Jesus) disagree. Most people are unaware of how often this is necessary. Just as here on earth, many fathers and sons disagree, so it is in heaven.
You’d be surprised how many religious laws are actually the result of a split decision, and the Holy Ghost’s most important job is to keep heaven from being paralyzed by these indecisive tied votes.
Did my invitation to this religion-bashing party get lost in the mail? 😉
PoliticallyVeryCorrect #356
I just looked over the Visa forms. I didn’t see those terms. Can you post a link to the one that has them.
>>I keep wondering why it takes the rest of
>>you so long to catch on.
Maybe the rest of us surpassed your 4-year-old’s ephiphany, µ-Mike.
Think about it.
I don’t care what the Random House Guide to Political Correctness has to say.
I suppose you are one of those people who would say, ‘he is the first African-American, from any country, …’
I can’t believe you got 358 comments for this stupid thread. Now I’ve made it 359.