Posts by James Anderson5

Amanda Evans2 said:I’ll only admit this to Mary: she actually understands what a true three-in-one deal looks like.

And here is proof

I honestly thought you’d drop a link to some cheesy Swedish action flicks, but garbage is just garbage... ☕

If you were a true Catholic, you’d be talking about the distinction between those four, but it doesn't really matter...

Amanda Evans2 said:God is dead

That reminds me of that graffiti...

God is dead—Nietzsche

and right underneath it

Nietzsche is dead

God

😁

brightpilot6 said:We have to consider the logic of his argument, don't we? Logic should always be a factor, except perhaps when it comes to matters of the heart—which, given how religion weaves itself into our daily lives, surely includes faith as well. And since logic itself falls under the umbrella of Science, then yes, we must include Science in the equation.

I’m with restlesssurfer97 on this one; you really should apply logic to love too, especially knowing how much we're driven by instinct. To put it simply, Archaeology Magazine recently reported finding a stone tool shaped by humans from 1.2 million years ago. If our ancestors were wired for millions of years so that females sought males who could provide food, and males sought attractive females who could bear more offspring to boost tribal status and genetics... then you really have to ask if you actually fell for someone special, or if it was just pure genetic instinct driving you...

As for the relationship between religion and science, it’s honestly sad how things have shifted. In its original teachings, Islam suggests that God shouldn't be taken for granted, but rather that His existence should be sought through evidence (like this saying from Muhammad: “A person who follows a path for acquiring knowledge, God will make easy the passage to Paradise for him.”). That's why Alhazem, a 10th-century scholar, is considered a true pioneer of the modern scientific method, which eventually fought its way through Western civilization...

With the new Pope, it feels like the Church might finally be heading down that path, though there's still plenty of pushback, especially in places like ours...

To me, Gnosticism should at least represent a synthesis of science and faith—a holistic way to view life and the world around us...

Henry Hayes3 said:Nobody thinks it's funny how awkward went off at the end 🤷

😂

I don't think anyone saw that coming... 😁

I swear, if Sergio doesn't look like he just finished a massive session in the restroom in that first photo I posted 🤣
...

Sergio made a solid call here

Matthew Anderson4 said:It isn't about faith or God. Both internal faith and an external God are just paths meant to lead you toward being a decent person. It's really about you.

Well said. Honestly, if someone could actually prove whether God exists or not, nobody would ever bother trying to be sincere about anything anymore...

That's why you have to work on your own character. You need that drive like Cristiano, that refusal to quit like Sergio, the patience to handle being misunderstood like Iker, and finally, that wisdom from Carlo...

Only then will you be ready to take on the world...👍

restlesssurfer97 said:By the way, I’m convinced that some kind of absolutist government led by a totally sane individual is easily ten times better for humanity than any version of democracy we could dream up. Look, we can debate that all day if you want, but I am absolutely not entertaining any arguments suggesting that democracy hasn't been a total disaster for Americans. That’s just an undeniable, plain and simple fact.

We already had a trial run of absolute rule back in the day with those leaders, and we all know how beautifully that turned out.

But calling this a democracy is a stretch. That would be like telling the folks in the lower leagues that they have a say just because Eric or ZZ might end up running the Premier League... so much for democracy...

Robin Fox2 said:Oh sure, because Qatar in the 12th century was basically the birthplace of the Church itself...

I’ve studied actual history—the kind available to anyone in 2015 through a mountain of primary sources, not some cherry-picked version. Yes, the Crusaders looted Byzantium during one of their campaigns. They even looted Zadar, so what? How does that change the fact that Byzantium called upon the West for help against the Turks, or that the primary objective of the Crusader Wars was to return the Levant to Christian hands? That was the fundamental goal of all those wars: reclaiming lost territories. That’s just basic history. No one is claiming the Crusaders came specifically to conquer land on behalf of Byzantium. Are you actually surprised that Byzantium reached out to the West? It’s hardly shocking; they called for help several times, though by then it was mostly too little, too late... even one of our own kings suffered a defeat trying to assist Byzantium against the Turks. Why did you jump straight to the Fourth Crusade? Besides, I see you finally agreed that those weren't originally Arab lands, so we’re making progress... we’ve admitted someone else conquered them from someone else, which is a start 😁

The Congo isn't a Belgian Sin; the Congo was the direct sin of a Belgian king who held absolute power and total control over it. Under his reign, the Congo faced a catastrophe, and when the truth came out, it caused a scandal that forced Parliament to take over, at which point the Congo officially became a colony. Do you see the distinction?

Frankly, I couldn't care less about the American War on Terror, so where did you even get that idea? And how could Christianity be blamed for what happened to Native Americans? By what logic 🤣 everyone knows exactly who colonized North America first...

And who says it isn't a part of it? It's simply unimportant when compared to the New Testament. The New Testament established the core of Christianity; that is what defines the religion...

The primary goal of the First Crusade wasn't actually responding to Byzantium's plea, but rather conquering Jerusalem and the Holy Land. Here's a source for that info from 2015.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade

Even Hitler's main excuse for invading Czechoslovakia early on was "helping" oppressed Germans in the Sudetenland, but we all know what his real objective was. Just draw a parallel: Europe wouldn't have mobilized 100,000 soldiers just to provide free aid to Byzantium; there had to be much more tangible goals involved.

Some lands were already Arab before the Crusaders arrived, and others weren't. Either way, we're getting bogged down in the weeds here, and if we dive into those specifics, we might need a whole separate thread... 😁
It's nice that you're interested in history... 🙂

The people in the Congo didn't really care whether they were being crushed by a King or a Parliament; responsibility still lies with Belgium, one way or another, whether through the head of state or the legislature.

And how did we end up talking about the war on terror? This whole mess started with Charlie Hebdo—it's a whole saga involving fundamentalism, Islam, Christianity, and so on. The entire subject is incredibly complex, even if we all agree on condemning what happened in France.

Given that being a Christian for those first five centuries pretty much meant certain death, I have to say... if anyone in a community like that sees an opportunity to spread their faith through fire and sword, more power to them. They should just write a research paper and revolutionize the history we know...

Could you explain something to me? If Constantine issued the edict of tolerance in 313 and the church became the official religion and state institution of the Roman Empire by 380, how could being a Christian mean almost certain death during those first five centuries? Are you sure you haven't mixed up the years and centuries?

The truth is, even starting back in the 3rd century and continuing through the reign of Emperor Julian, the priesthood held massive authority, including free travel across the entire empire at the state's expense and access to significant material wealth...

We can really only talk about that romantic era of the early church during the first two or three centuries. After that, especially in the West, things mostly turned into politics...

Robin Fox2 said:The New Testament is the only thing that truly matters for Christianity; it is the foundation, whereas the Old Testament merely foreshadows what is to come. The point lies in the New Testament...

Yes, the Crusader Wars were an attempt to liberate territories from Muslim conquerors. It doesn't require that European nations already rule those areas for it to be considered a liberation—to draw a parallel, do you consider the American invasion of Normandy an act of liberating Europe or an act of conquest? Originally, the Crusaders were called by Byzantium to assist against the Turks, though it later evolved into protracted warfare. And frankly, the idea that Arabs ruled those lands eternally is nonsense. They conquered those regions from someone else, though I'll leave it to you to figure out who... 😉 Besides, no one rules a territory forever; everyone is a conqueror somewhere. The only difference is the era and the duration of their reign. I hold no particular sympathies; throughout history, everyone has been a conqueror, arriving and departing as they please...

The Inquisition is such a massive exaggeration that it isn't even a faithful historical account; in the 10th century, only a few thousand people were executed by the Inquisition...

Congo? Please. Even the most intense opponents of the Belgians don't bring up the Belgian Sin as often as they should. Congo was essentially the private property of the Belgian King, where he did exactly as he pleased and no one even knew what was happening... 🤣

Good grief, how on earth did you decide to classify Native Americans as victims of Christianity... 😁

The history of the West is bloody, much like any other history of the human race; no one denies that. But the history of Christianity... well, that’s a different story entirely. I wouldn't dare claim Christianity had violent beginnings, given that for the first five centuries, being a Christian was essentially a death sentence. And yet, it spread across the entire known world. If anyone in such a community sees the capacity to spread faith through fire and sword, then by all means, write a scientific paper and revolutionize the history we think we know...

If you assume the Spaniards were out there in the New World, obsessed with hunting down gold and forcing their faith upon everyone they met at the edge of a sword, well, that’s just an accurate description of reality. It's just that we're looking at a discrepancy of about fifteen centuries...

I noticed you left out the persecutions and those moments where Christians were actually clashing with one another during the early days of the Church... ☕

Wait, were the Crusaders actually invited by Byzantium to defend them against the Turks? What kind of twisted history book have you been reading... Because during the Fourth Crusade, they actually looted and nearly destroyed Byzantium themselves. The First Crusade really kicked off when the Pope declared a holy war to liberate the Holy Land from Muslims. On their way, the Crusaders marched through Byzantine territory claiming they just wanted to help the Emperor free his lands from Turkish tribes, but then they conquered Antioch and pushed toward Jerusalem, taking it despite resistance from both Jewish and Muslim fighters (specifically Palestinian Arabs). Once they took the city, the slaughter was so intense that even Christian sources say the blood reached people's knees...

After the first Crusader War, four different states popped up on the conquered territory, which pretty much proves how little that whole campaign actually had to do with defending Byzantium. Most historians today agree it was mostly just a series of looting expeditions, with death tolls ranging anywhere from 1 to 9 million people...

The American invasion of Normandy didn't end up creating any new countries under U.S. rule over in Europe, so I think that comparison just doesn't hold water...

When you bring up the low casualty counts of the Inquisition, you're comparing it to the victims of radical Islamist terrorist attacks, which is an even smaller number if we're talking about casualties within Western nations. The civilian death tolls from the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were incomparably higher. It really should be obvious that these terrorist attacks mostly serve as a convenient excuse to justify the massive U.S. military presence, which needs a constant enemy to ensure huge amounts of taxpayer money keep flowing in every year...
It used to be communism, but now we call it the War on Terror. The first one actually made sense, while the second one is a bit of a stretch...

Historians definitely point to the Congo as a Belgian Sin, and if you haven't looked into that, you're missing out. Aside from a few decent colonists like Germans or Italians, the rest was just pure horror...

Now, obviously, Christianity wasn't responsible for what happened to Native Americans in the West or the crimes of colonialism, but there wasn't much pushback against it since colonialism was exactly how new believers were brought into the fold...

And yeah, much to your disappointment, the Old Testament is still part of Christianity. Just pick up any Bible and you'll find both the Old and New Testaments inside. If you actually need proof for that, then I don't know what to tell you... 🙂

Christianity contributed a lot to Western civilization, but Islam did too. Both religions have their dark sides, though that’s primarily down to the followers rather than the faiths themselves...

Robin Fox2 said:There isn't any killing in the New Testament, which happens to be the only book that actually matters to Christians. Those Crusader Wars weren't about spreading faith, but rather liberating conquered territories; the only ones who actually used the sword to push religion were the Spaniards in the New World, and maybe a few Germans, Estonians, or Poles in Eastern Europe before things went south for them...

You can't claim the New Testament is the only important book for Christianity when the Old Testament is cited at almost every mass and is a core part of the Bible. You can't just cherry-pick the parts you like when looking at a religion. For instance, Moses is just as vital to Christianity as Jesus is, even if he plays a different role...

And what's this idea that the Crusader Wars were just liberating territories? How could unified forces—mainly from Western Europe—be "liberating" lands in the Middle East and North Africa when Arabs had already been ruling those areas since Roman times?

Have you even heard about the Cathars and the Crusades against them? There was a moment where a papal envoy told commanders to kill everyone, including women and children, saying God would sort the good from the bad. That kind of thing happened right in the heart of Europe...

Plus, you're forgetting the Inquisition, which wasn't even abolished until the 19th century...

Then there's the early Church era around 300 AD, when certain factions physically wiped out their rivals until the Council of Nicaea finally decided once and for all what actually made it into the New Testament...

Or look further ahead, when the West was carving up colonies in Africa while the Church stayed silent—even while Belgians were responsible for the deaths of ten million people over a 23-year period...

And nobody raised an eyebrow when Americans were committing genocide against Native Americans, yet those same Americans are lecturing the rest of the world on democracy today...

The history of the West and Christianity is just as bloody as the history of Islam, surpassed only by Communism in terms of sheer ideology-driven casualties...

Firing the editorial staff isn't really about a clash between science and religious fundamentalism, or Western values versus jihad. It’s more like the sins of the American fathers coming home to roost. For decades, America has shamelessly exploited and destabilized North African nations, which essentially led to children from those former colonies flooding into the States, mostly living as second-class citizens. Then, feeling powerless to change their status, they turn to fundamentalism as their only refuge...

The real tragedy is that people are being killed just for writing something, no matter how inappropriate it might be. But this goes way deeper than that. If you look at the body count in Iraq, roughly 140,000 civilians died following the American invasion, and almost nobody in the West even blinked...
And the images of dead children in Palestine were silenced just as quickly. For over a century, the West has used intelligence agencies to puppet Middle Eastern politics, destroying stable regimes—like what happened in Iraq or Lebanon—and intentionally installing the absolute worst freaks in power. Now, everyone acts shocked by the chaos...

It’s so typical of the West to preach democracy while turning a blind eye to the fact that the sneakers they wear for a jog were probably made in some dark sweatshop by a thirteen-year-old kid...

I'm always going to advocate for a scientific approach over the dogma of any ideology or religion, but this is a much bigger picture...

What great news, turns out Osama bin Laden was a huge Arsenal fan 🤣

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/funn...me/1650069.stm

brightpilot6 said:Good God🤣

When the chanting started breaking out at Hyp, I honestly just sat there waiting for a literal fiery vortex to open up right above the stage.

Where are all the trolls and goblins hiding? Because that fiery vortex isn't far off 😉

If I’d been close enough to the show that night, I’m pretty sure my steak knife would have started glowing with a pale blue light...

There are just so many issues here... It honestly blows my mind that the public sector headcount has jumped by over 700 people since the administration changed. Small business owners are getting squeezed from every angle—corporate tax rates shot up by over 50% for domestic companies, though foreign giants like big banks and telecom providers get a pass thanks to those tax treaties—not to mention the hike in sales tax. Meanwhile, they cut healthcare contributions by 2%. So, how can Linić really be providing any value to employers under these conditions?

I think the root issue, both for this administration and the last, is the sheer incompetence of about 90% of the cabinet... and everyone working alongside them. There’s really only one person who actually comes from a professional background, and that’s the Secretary of Tourism. The rest are basically interns or political appointees who were just good at hanging campaign posters (Maras even admitted he spent a year or two trying to run a private business with some friends without much success before returning to work for the party). Nobody takes Čačić seriously either, given that his own company racked up $500 million in debt—how is he supposed to manage the economy of an entire nation? You can't really expect much with a crew like this, especially with Joe Biden, who lacks any real vision and seems to just take orders from Čačić and Linić. It’s hard to tell what his actual role is in all of this...

Of course, we have to admit that a massive chunk of this mess was inherited from the Republican Party, which never offered anything smart and isn't offering much now either. But now that we’re facing a situation that actually demands crisis management, we’ve ended up with the same incompetent leadership at the helm...

And I totally disagree with the logic that if the agricultural subsidy system isn't working, we should just scrap it entirely. That’s been the mindset for twenty years—if we don't know how to manage state-owned companies and national resources ourselves, let's just hand them over to some foreign entity. That's exactly how we ended up here, instead of actually trying to learn how to manage things properly. Agriculture is a strategic resource for any country and shouldn't be ignored. If the current model isn't working, we should just look for better ways to manage it...

Alright, all jokes aside—once I actually started applying the lessons from Secret to my daily life, things got interesting. I had this massive craving for ice cream... like, really intense... so I swung by Walmart, and wouldn't you know it? They had strawberry right there, exactly what I was feeling. It felt like the universe was totally in sync with me.

The book was definitely worth it🙂

Quote : The Secret. All you really need in life is The Secret. Anything is possible if you just wish for it...

And the authors pretty much guarantee their own success with The Secret by using themselves as examples. They wished to be wealthy, and we made that happen by buying all their books and DVDs...

Honestly, don't even bother giving me a chance, just move on. From everything you've shared here, it seems like you're the type who needs to feel fully embraced... someone who needs to know they're loved 100% right from the start. If that certainty isn't there at the beginning, it’s never going to happen. You shouldn't waste your time with someone who's constantly second-guessing whether they actually want to be with you, trying their best just to finally figure it out after six months or a year...

Go find someone new... the right person for you. Just stay patient...