Posts by wanderingmaker8

The problem is that this whole topic was framed as a forced choice between just two options, rather than offering three distinct paths. Besides, the entire discussion has been pretty much derailed by a bunch of uncontrolled kids making outbursts, so honestly, the original point isn't even relevant anymore.

Everyone has to carry their own cross. 😉

What on earth does your post have to do with the topic at hand?

The sheer, sinister magnetism of spamming... 😁 😎

Alright, everyone! Let's keep the trolling to a minimum, please.

Thanks.

schmokljan said:P.S. The real asylum here is actually the editorial policy of this forum—this entire thread was tossed into the madhouse simply because some people find it intolerable to discuss Jesus with even a hint of irony.

Honestly, I’ve got to say, the sheer incompetence of the moderation here is pretty startling; they have this warped vision of free speech where a topic needs to be half-censored just because the focus happens to be Jesus. 😕 Of course, nobody bothered to explain which specific subforum rule was supposedly broken, but then again, who in America actually expects the authorities to explain or justify their decisions once they get a taste of power? 😉

It’s also consistently fascinating to watch the endless stream of people who have no clue what a constructive debate looks like, constantly trying to turn every single discussion into a total clusterfuck.

Anyway, back to the point—could you please walk us through your actual position, Paradox? Or do you honestly think it’s enough to just drop a label like "definitely a right-winger" and walk away without providing a shred of proof or argument? 🙂

briskpuma23 said:The topic isn't, and absolutely cannot be, stupid. Jesus is a historical figure, and the way his messages—or the messages attributed to him—are interpreted has shaped, continues to shape, and will continue to shape people's lives on both a personal and a massive geopolitical scale.

I'm with you there; we really shouldn't waste our breath on people who contribute nothing to the conversation other than whining about how "stupid" the topic is.🙄 😉

The real question is whether we can actually view the political actions of Jesus through the lens of modern-day political standards—basically, whether it's even possible to label things as "left-wing" or "right-wing" in the BC era. That’s likely what the people calling this "moronic" were getting at, though they probably lack the vocabulary to express that thought properly.

Emily Taylor3 said:Personally, I find the idea of labeling Jesus as either a right-winger or a left-winger laughable, but do whatever you want; just maybe try reading the New Testament before commenting so you actually know what you're talking about. 👍

Look, to me, that kind of narrow-mindedness is what's actually funny, where you only point back to the New Testament as the sole authority. It isn't the only source available, and surely we can bring other gospels into a discussion, even the ones the mainstream Church doesn't recognize?

Besides, this is a public forum, not some academic symposium, so I don't see any reason to demand special credentials just to share an opinion.

briskpuma23 said:Jesus essentially rejected the very idea of states and earthly kingdoms. In that sense, he was pretty close to being an anarchist.

But let’s be real, he wasn't an anarchist because when his land was under Roman occupation, he didn't have a single political bone in his body and didn't actually do anything about it.

Then you’ve got those people claiming he occupied both the left and right wings of the spectrum just because... well, how else is he supposed to fly up to heaven? Basic aerodynamics, right? 😁

Yeah, the server might actually crash from all this "constructive" input... 😁

Joseph Kern11 said:This thread is retarded and stupid.

Oh, please. I’m sure there’s at least one person out there who actually views Jesus as a historical figure. What exactly is so retarded or stupid about debating the political leanings of someone from history?

Disclaimer: We guarantee all participants that they won't sin or end up in hell because of this discussion. It's ok to discuss.

Ego vos absolvo 🙂

rapidhawk21 said:What an absolute load of nonsense. May God grant him some common sense.

Let’s skip the prayers and actually address the point here. Please, just focus. 😁

Feeding the masses, healing the poor and the overlooked as a metaphor for universal healthcare—to me, that reeks of pure socialism. Even his preaching about everyone being able to walk through the pearly gates flies right in the face of traditional doctrine regarding who is actually worthy to enter the temple. It’s all just more metaphors about equality and how the powerful and the wealthy shouldn't be allowed to control people's lives, and so on.

I'm becoming less and less convinced that he was ever actually a conservative.

What exactly do you mean by logic here? 😁

Bradley Nelson2 said:shouldn't he be labeled a right-winger because of that?

I'm not so sure about that.

A right-winger coming from a blue-collar family who spends his time meditating in botanical gardens while calling for a revolution? Hmm...

Well, here comes the Inquisition. They certainly haven't lost their touch when it comes to moving fast. 😁

In the spirit of the holidays, I’ve got a political question for you all: do you think Jesus leaned left or right?

Given how much he stood up against the authority of Rome and the high priesthood, he definitely gives off leftist vibes. Honestly, he practically looks like a hippie. 😁 On the flip side, though, the church that claims to carry on his teachings is staunchly conservative.

To me, Jesus's political messages always seemed a bit mixed, but if you were forced to pick a side—leftist or rightist—which way would you go?

I wasn't even talking about you. 🙄 😁

It’s because kids actually want you to break things down and explain them in plain English. If they were capable of conducting their own deep-dive research, they wouldn't be stuck asking these kinds of questions on internet forums in the first place. 🙂

wanderingraven15 said:Way to go, you're almost spot on. Did you figure that out yourself, or did you just copy-paste it from somewhere?

Why does that even matter? Honestly, I think it's more important to correct the inaccuracies so the OP actually gets the right info rather than you nitpicking my sources.

Charles Young said:I don't quite follow the part where you claim crack cocaine is being baked into little pieces.

My bad, it’s not really about "baking" so much as it is about mixing. You make crack by combining the powder with ammonia or baking soda. In the slang I'm used to, people say "baked cocaine" because they use baking soda, so I just translated that literally.

The mixture is boiled to separate the solids, which then get broken down into small chunks once they cool off.

wanderingraven15 said:You want to know how it affects the body? That’s the easy part... It's HARMFUL.

What we have here is a simplified explanation heavily clouded by bias and incomplete data. To put it bluntly, when asking how a substance affects the body, the OP didn't actually get an answer—they just got a lecture.

The physiological effect of crack is such that you experience an accelerated, ultra-intense high lasting about two minutes, followed by a pleasant buzz for roughly twenty minutes before the inevitable, heavy "crash." Essentially, crack is cocaine processed into small pebbles for smoking.

Despite what the mainstream media might scream at you, addiction doesn't happen instantly. Regarding the other health risks and consequences, crack shouldn't be combined with other stimulants or alcohol. Smoking crack can trigger chest pains, lung damage, and bronchitis. It spikes your heart rate, blood pressure, and body temperature while suppressing appetite and sleep, which can ultimately lead to strokes, heart attacks, or even death in certain instances.

Beyond crack, pipe smoking involves several other substances: hashish, marijuana, crystal meth, and tobacco.

And let's be clear: "addicts" (or rather, "drug users," since not everyone who uses drugs—even addictive ones—is an addict) aren't something you can just "spot" on sight.