Let's keep arguing, you're getting real close to convincing me your religion isn't a load of dog shit splashed over a fat girls cunt.
You said you blame capitalism for problems, I assume you like Communism/Socialism?
Stalin co-opted Communism, that means Communism supports authoritarianism right? National Socialists are obviously Socialists since they took the name and published a lot of stuff right? That means Good Communists support Siberian prison work camps and Good Socialists support the Holocaust, right? Any Communist or Socialist who acts like a decent human being in spite of the evils done in the name of a twisted simulacrum of Communism or Socialism is a Bad Communist/Socialist, right?
Otherwise, you'd have to acknowledge that sometimes, over the course of a movement, bad actors try to co-opt the name of that movement for their own corrupt personal gain, and that sometimes if those bad actors have secured significant political influence they can manufacture consensus on the "official" beliefs of that movement through "official" publications.
So choose: is Hitler a Good Socialist, or is Paul a Bad Christian?
I'm sure we can both agree that Hitler wasn't a socialist.
The difference here is that you presuppose people are poorly interpreting the bible when they choose one contradiction over another.
There is no interpretation of communism where the current state of China is permitted.
The bible CLEARLY endorses/encourages/condones MANY fucked up stances and never corrects for them.
Paul is a good Christian, since what he says is in the bible.
There's no difference, you're just a hypocrite. What's good for the goose is good for the gander: either a message is corruptible, or it isn't. Either the total corpus of Christianity/Communism is canon, or it isn't. Either the evils enshrined in later "Communist" literature is sacrosanct, or the evils enshrined in later "Christian" literature is suspect. "The Bible" is a political corruption of Christianity no less than modern China is a political corruption of Communism. If the Bible denotes the definitive Christianity, then Mao denotes the definitive Marxism.
To claim otherwise it's hypocritical double-speak. Are you a hypocrite, or do you acknowledge the Bible might be a slightly more politically compromised document than you've heretofore claimed?
You're a hypocrite.
There are no inconsistencies in the communist manifesto as far as I'm aware. It certainly doesn't endorse totalitarian dictatorships or genocide (though the bible does, multiple times).
Yet, your bible details rules for slaves and never corrects itself. The bible endorses and encourages slavery. You just choose to ignore it.
I'm not a hypocrite.
The Bible is a particular selection of disparate writings collected over centuries and codified millennia after the events described.
By like comparison, Communism as a corpus is composed of the exploits of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
The gospels of Christianity are more similar to the Manifesto itself, and contain none of the dictatorships or genocides to which you allude. The gospels do not encourage slavery. If you judge the Bible based on the commentaries and political corruptions, then so judge Communism by gulags and genocides. If one is corruption, then both are. If one is canon, then both are. If you judge Christianity by Paul, judge Communism by Mao. Mao published. Paul published. If it's unfair to judge Communism by Mao, it's unfair to judge Christianity by Paul.
Make up your mind.
Lol so you are cherry picking your flavour of Christianity.
I'm done, have a nice day dickhead.
I'll see you in hell for failing to bash gays over the head with bricks.
So you are cherry picking your flavor of Communism.
Yep.
Now fuck off
As I said, hypocrisy.
As I said, fuck off.
You're exactly why I hate religion, you make me sick. Go to hell.
The exposure of your own hypocrisy? I can understand why you'd be opposed to that. That doesn't make your opposition righteous. Mostly just sad.
Look how pathetic you are that you need to get the last comment to win the argument.
Don't you think Jesus would want you to turn the other cheek and walk away?
What a load of shit lol.
Let's keep arguing, you're getting real close to convincing me your religion isn't a load of dog shit splashed over a fat girls cunt.
You said you blame capitalism for problems, I assume you like Communism/Socialism?
Stalin co-opted Communism, that means Communism supports authoritarianism right? National Socialists are obviously Socialists since they took the name and published a lot of stuff right? That means Good Communists support Siberian prison work camps and Good Socialists support the Holocaust, right? Any Communist or Socialist who acts like a decent human being in spite of the evils done in the name of a twisted simulacrum of Communism or Socialism is a Bad Communist/Socialist, right?
Otherwise, you'd have to acknowledge that sometimes, over the course of a movement, bad actors try to co-opt the name of that movement for their own corrupt personal gain, and that sometimes if those bad actors have secured significant political influence they can manufacture consensus on the "official" beliefs of that movement through "official" publications.
So choose: is Hitler a Good Socialist, or is Paul a Bad Christian?
I'm sure we can both agree that Hitler wasn't a socialist.
The difference here is that you presuppose people are poorly interpreting the bible when they choose one contradiction over another.
There is no interpretation of communism where the current state of China is permitted.
The bible CLEARLY endorses/encourages/condones MANY fucked up stances and never corrects for them.
Paul is a good Christian, since what he says is in the bible.
There's no difference, you're just a hypocrite. What's good for the goose is good for the gander: either a message is corruptible, or it isn't. Either the total corpus of Christianity/Communism is canon, or it isn't. Either the evils enshrined in later "Communist" literature is sacrosanct, or the evils enshrined in later "Christian" literature is suspect. "The Bible" is a political corruption of Christianity no less than modern China is a political corruption of Communism. If the Bible denotes the definitive Christianity, then Mao denotes the definitive Marxism.
To claim otherwise it's hypocritical double-speak. Are you a hypocrite, or do you acknowledge the Bible might be a slightly more politically compromised document than you've heretofore claimed?
You're a hypocrite.
There are no inconsistencies in the communist manifesto as far as I'm aware. It certainly doesn't endorse totalitarian dictatorships or genocide (though the bible does, multiple times).
Yet, your bible details rules for slaves and never corrects itself. The bible endorses and encourages slavery. You just choose to ignore it.
I'm not a hypocrite.
The Bible is a particular selection of disparate writings collected over centuries and codified millennia after the events described.
By like comparison, Communism as a corpus is composed of the exploits of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
The gospels of Christianity are more similar to the Manifesto itself, and contain none of the dictatorships or genocides to which you allude. The gospels do not encourage slavery. If you judge the Bible based on the commentaries and political corruptions, then so judge Communism by gulags and genocides. If one is corruption, then both are. If one is canon, then both are. If you judge Christianity by Paul, judge Communism by Mao. Mao published. Paul published. If it's unfair to judge Communism by Mao, it's unfair to judge Christianity by Paul.
Make up your mind.
Lol so you are cherry picking your flavour of Christianity.
I'm done, have a nice day dickhead.
I'll see you in hell for failing to bash gays over the head with bricks.
So you are cherry picking your flavor of Communism.
Yep.
Now fuck off
As I said, hypocrisy.
As I said, fuck off.
You're exactly why I hate religion, you make me sick. Go to hell.
The exposure of your own hypocrisy? I can understand why you'd be opposed to that. That doesn't make your opposition righteous. Mostly just sad.
Look how pathetic you are that you need to get the last comment to win the argument.
Don't you think Jesus would want you to turn the other cheek and walk away?