New Testament Says Most Of Humanity Will Be Lost to Damnation

[Rakhmetov]

Even Christ says that most people will be damned to travel along the wide and straight road not the narrow winding road that leads to salvation. So what kind of omnipotent savior was he????

Matthew 7:13

13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

[Conquer or Die]

The point is that right is right, regardless of what the majority thinks.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Well except for those who accept Jesus. Christians preach because they want people to be "saved". ;)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The point is that right is right, regardless of what the majority thinks.

It's just a part of what makes Christianity such a vile religion.

[Bud Struggle]

It's just a part of what makes Christianity such a vile religion.
Because it wants you to BELIEVE in something. It's just like Moslemism or Hinduism or Communism. You have to not only live in the system you have to BELIEVE that they are the correct way to exist.

That's what is great about Capitalism--it requires no belief. You can be any religion or no religion. IT DOESN'T CARE. You can believe in any economic system. All you have to do is work, get your pay and then but things. Believe whatever you want.

Capitalism is a lot more "low maintainance" than Communism.

[Queercommie Girl]

Because it wants you to BELIEVE in something. It's just like Moslemism or Hinduism or Communism. You have to not only live in the system you have to BELIEVE that they are the correct way to exist.

That's what is great about Capitalism--it requires no belief. You can be any religion or no religion. IT DOESN'T CARE. You can believe in any economic system. All you have to do is work, get your pay and then but things. Believe whatever you want.

Capitalism is a lot more "low maintainance" than Communism.

Communism isn't a religious belief, it is an economic system like capitalism.

In capitalism you can believe in whatever you like, but you are not allowed to go against the capitalist laws of economics. You can't receive goods and services unless you exchange them for a particular kind of monetary value which is a representative symbol of the capitalist market.

In socialism it is like this too. There is no prohibition on religious belief, sexual practices etc, as long as these do not harm or discriminate against other people. But people must operate their lives according to socialist economic and political principles.

In capitalist society suppose I want to abolish representative democracy, then I will be considered an "enemy of freedom". In socialist society if you want to abolish proletarian democracy, including workers' democratic control of their workplaces, then you will be called a "reactionary". It's the same kind of thing.

[Queercommie Girl]

The point is that right is right, regardless of what the majority thinks.

What you said here is completely opposite to the principle of democracy and mass-rule, it easily provides a justification for autocratic dictatorship.

[NGNM85]

Even Christ says that most people will be damned to travel along the wide and straight road not the narrow winding road that leads to salvation. So what kind of omnipotent savior was he????

Matthew 7:13

13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Just another example of the moral paucity of this ponderous tome, as well as further proof against those who erroneously claim the New Testament as benign and compassionate. Yes, the scripture makes it absolutely clear, as most religions do, that all who do not accept theirs as the one true god will be subject to eternal, unspeakable torture, thus exposing the myth of religious 'tolerance.'

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Because it wants you to BELIEVE in something. It's just like Moslemism or Hinduism or Communism. You have to not only live in the system you have to BELIEVE that they are the correct way to exist.

That's what is great about Capitalism--it requires no belief. You can be any religion or no religion. IT DOESN'T CARE. You can believe in any economic system. All you have to do is work, get your pay and then but things. Believe whatever you want.

It's not the beliefs themselves that concern me so much (although they are unpleasant), rather it's all the baggage that comes with it. Beliefs inform actions, and if you genuinely believe that humans are inherently corrupt (sinful), then how could such a toxic belief not end up colouring one's other beliefs as well as one's actions?


Capitalism is a lot more "low maintainance" than Communism.

Only if you're rich.

[ZeroNowhere]

Because it wants you to BELIEVE in something. It's just like Moslemism or Hinduism or Communism. You have to not only live in the system you have to BELIEVE that they are the correct way to exist.

That's what is great about Capitalism--it requires no belief. You can be any religion or no religion. IT DOESN'T CARE. You can believe in any economic system. All you have to do is work, get your pay and then but things. Believe whatever you want. Yes, what makes Christianity a vile religion is that it involves a moral viewpoint, just like opposition to murder and rape. Of course.

But ultimately all that you are saying is that capitalism exists presently regardless of whether one believes that it is good or not. Well, yes, but then so does rape, and so did Nazism. Indeed, if communism were to come about, your beliefs on the matter wouldn't cause it to suddenly disappear either.

It's rather trivial to say that an economic system is different from a moral belief, including a moral belief that such an economic system should or should not be abolished. One might as well say, 'Well, the difference between supporting democracy and being in a dictatorship is that the former requires you to support a system, while the latter does not.' This is not profound.

[Bilan]

The point is that right is right, regardless of what the majority thinks.

You, my young chickita, need to do a little bit of history.

I'd recommend the chapter "The Spirit of Capitalism" in Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and "Smile or Die: How positive thinking fooled America and the World" by Barbara Ehrenreich.

You'll soon learn the repercussions of such thinking.

(The former will merely explain why it's beneficial to this system; the latter touches on the impacts on health and psychological well being)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

"Smile or Die: How positive thinking fooled America and the World" by Barbara Ehrenreich.

Excellent book.

[Queercommie Girl]

You, my young chickita, need to do a little bit of history.

I'd recommend the chapter "The Spirit of Capitalism" in Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and "Smile or Die: How positive thinking fooled America and the World" by Barbara Ehrenreich.

You'll soon learn the repercussions of such thinking.

(The former will merely explain why it's beneficial to this system; the latter touches on the impacts on health and psychological well being)

My advice is that you probably shouldn't waste so much time on him. That guy, who is restricted, is somewhat nuts. He is a lost cause.

[Conquer or Die]

My advice is that you probably shouldn't waste so much time on him. That guy, who is restricted, is somewhat nuts. He is a lost cause.

Coming from a "Trotskyite Left Maoist" I think I have a stronger grasp on reality than you. In more ways than one.

[Klaatu]

That's what is great about Capitalism--it requires no belief. You can be any religion or no religion. IT DOESN'T CARE. You can believe in any economic system. All you have to do is work, get your pay and then but things. Believe whatever you want.

Capitalism requires "no belief?" Sure it does: it requires a belief that the rich man is going to provide for you,
in the most benevolent way possible: a job, a sharing of his vast wealth, and is going to grant you all of your rights...



Capitalism is a lot more "low maintainance" than Communism.

Is that so?

You're saying that my email box, chock-full of spam and porn, the BP oil spill, manifold food-poisoning related recalls,
rising, crippling interest rates on credit cards, and so on and on and on, are "low-maintenence?"

The fact of the matter is that capitalism is actually a high-maintenence system, in that the authorities must
constantly watch for crooks. The system is riddled with criminals. You will get screwed if you turn your back.
That is the nature of the capitalist system, to profit and take advantage of the working class.

That's the real world, comrade.

[Queercommie Girl]

Coming from a "Trotskyite Left Maoist" I think I have a stronger grasp on reality than you. In more ways than one.

What exactly do you have against Trotskyism or Maoism, I wonder?

Someone who defends the fundamentalist religious doctrine that the vast majority of humanity are going to eternal hell accusing me for not having a strong grasp on reality? LOL

[Nuvem]

Well except for those who accept Jesus. Christians preach because they want people to be "saved". A pretty way of saying that they demand conformity and resisting conformity is punishable by eternal torture. Be a brainwashed tool or burn forever! What a wonderful set of options. Especially when they're being offered up by a bunch of smiling delusional halfwits or crazed psychopaths frothing at the mouth and screaming at children about the sins of sex and the horrors of hell.http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/wink.gif

[iwwforever]

Zombie Jesus:

A working class man dared to defy the ruling class.

Sharing all that he had, he fed the poor and cared for the sick.

His followers were many.

He taught against selfish ambition and materialism.

The wealthy and powerful were afraid. They had the man crucified. His followers were persecuted.

It was too late; they could not stop his message from spreading.

The ruling class needed to control the masses.

Taking ideas from ancient prophesies… they deified the crucified carpenter.

His selfless acts of generosity and sacrifice were called miracles.

His gruesome execution was taught to be part of a divine plan. Claiming that, after rotting in the grave for 3 days, the man’s dead body came back to life.

2000 years later, the ruling classes still fear us, and they should, for we are many, and they are few.

[Orange Juche]

And the state is supposed to magically drift away into the clouds, and everyone will be happy.

[Invincible Summer]

Well except for those who accept Jesus. Christians preach because they want people to be "saved". ;)

To be fair, not all sects of Christianity preach. It's mainly Protestant Evangelists.


I guess colonialism (with predominantly Catholicism as the religious aspect) sort of counted as "preaching," but that's an aside.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

To be fair, not all sects of Christianity preach. It's mainly Protestant Evangelists.

They all preach, it's just the Evangelists are the ones who the most obnoxious about it.

Otherwise, why be Christian at all?

[Invincible Summer]

They all preach, it's just the Evangelists are the ones who the most obnoxious about it.

Otherwise, why be Christian at all?


Hahah true enough!


I guess technically all Christians preach, but (at least in my experience), Evangelists/Protestants are the ones who actively tell people to read the Bible and "trust in Jesus Christ" and all that. My experience in the Catholic Church and with other (Anglican, United, etc) churches is that they're more... insular and club-like. People just go to meet other believers within the same denomination, and to hear the sermon.

Perhaps it's just the area that I live in, but even on the internet most complaints that I hear about Christians preaching are in reference to Protestant Evangelicals.


IMO I think that explaining one's beliefs in order to gain a sympathetic ear is one thing and somewhat permissable (which is, in my experience, what the non-Evangelicals seem to do), but trying to convince someone that "THE ONLY WAY TO SALVATION IS IN THE LORD JESUS CHRIST!!!" is something else entirely.

[Revolution starts with U]

I think refers to it being not common knowledge to practice good works and "live for god." What christians seem to forget is that Jesus was all about action, he defined purpose for humans as forsaking on material possessions, commiting all acts in brothership, and being inclusive to all people's, no matter religion, ethnicity, or past sins.
Of course I disagree with him on some key major issues. But I find the gist of his message as generally uplifting. Now, the Gospel of John, and later works of the New Testament (one's chosen by the Council of Nicea) specifically go against the larger message to push the issue that he is some kind of "son of god" (wtf that means lol) and that the message was some kind of different, only thru me (the person, not the actions) salvation.

[Queercommie Girl]

Who needs Jesus when you have Marx and Lenin?

Jesus's actual message is mixed in terms of quality, but objectively siding too much with Jesus would just play into the hands of those "most of humanity will suffer forever in eternal hell because they are not Christian" religious fundie lunatics who try to pass their joke of a religion as "progressive".

[anticap]

The point is that right is right, regardless of what the majority thinks.

The concept of 'right and wrong' is a human one arising out of social life. There is no external arbiter that I know of. The only way to even attempt to determine what is "right" in human affairs is by polling the majority. If the majority decides that it is "right" to toss its firstborn sons into a volcano then all the opposition can do is attempt to change the thinking of the majority and thereby redefine 'right and wrong' in that social context. They can't point to a constellation of stars where it is written that tossing babies into volcanoes is "wrong," but they can explain to the majority who believe in that practice that it has negative effects on social life. Some people are upset that they have no other recourse against the majority but persuasion, and so they invent deities and write books about them in an attempt to create an external arbiter that all must bow down to.


Capitalism ... requires no belief.

Nonsense; capitalism requires belief in the sanctity of bourgeois private property, upon which it depends for its continued existence.

[Adi Shankara]

Who needs Jesus when you have Marx and Lenin?

ITT: someone who knows shit about Christianity.

Marx or Lenin never wanted to be religious figures you dolt.

[Queercommie Girl]

ITT: someone who knows shit about Christianity.


Why would I need to know about a reactionary religion that has almost consistently persecuted LGBT people, atheists, progressives, as well as people of other religions?

Knowledge of reactionary things would only make you even more reactionary. More knowledge isn't always a good thing at all.

But then a revisionist piece of shit like you who directly quotes from homophobic and sexist right-wing Christian websites wouldn't understand any of this anyway.

So what's so great about this "Christian theology" you say I don't know? All the relatively positive features can also be found in many other philosophies and religions, while what is really unique in Christianity are only the negative reactionary elements such as intolerance towards other faiths, belief in absurd things like "virgin birth", "eternal heaven/hell", and totally unethical doctrines such as the idea that even an asshole who believes in Jesus can go to heaven while a good person who rejects Christianity as a religion will end up in hell. And I'm not even bringing up the historically reactionary role Christianity played in colonialism, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia...(the list goes on) etc.



Marx or Lenin never wanted to be religious figures you dolt.
You are an illiterate idiot who obviously has no understanding of what I actually meant at all. You are taking what I said completely upside-down. My point is that why would any genuine Marxists/Leninists need to believe in any kind of "religious figure" at all?

By the way, are you spiritually lost, Shankara? Didn't you say you were now a faithful Hindu? Don't you realise that the fundamentalist Christianity which I'm attacking and you are senselessly defending here has historically demonised and attacked Hinduism many times?

You are one confused individual.

[Invincible Summer]

Historical grudges? Really?

[graffic]

Yes it is the Protestant Evangelists who preach. I don't think Catholics preach. Jews also do not preach.

[Dean]

Yes it is the Protestant Evangelists who preach. I don't think Catholics preach. Jews also do not preach.
This doesn't make any sense.

[Conquer or Die]

Why would I need to know about a reactionary religion that has almost consistently persecuted LGBT people, atheists, progressives, as well as people of other religions?

Knowledge of reactionary things would only make you even more reactionary. More knowledge isn't always a good thing at all.

You're really an ignorant, spiteful person. More knowledge is *never* a bad thing. More knowledge will only strengthen your position. You automatically assume that you know everything if you reject things like that. I think you're angry about social discrimination, which is fine. But parading around your ignorance in shameful fashion isn't going to help that, it's only going to hurt yourself in the long run.


But then a revisionist piece of shit like you who directly quotes from homophobic and sexist right-wing Christian websites wouldn't understand any of this anyway.

The crime: political incorrectness. The argument: political incorrectness.

None of this is an argument.


So what's so great about this "Christian theology" you say I don't know? All the relatively positive features can also be found in many other philosophies and religions, while what is really unique in Christianity are only the negative reactionary elements such as intolerance towards other faiths, belief in absurd things like "virgin birth", "eternal heaven/hell", and totally unethical doctrines such as the idea that even an asshole who believes in Jesus can go to heaven while a good person who rejects Christianity as a religion will end up in hell. And I'm not even bringing up the historically reactionary role Christianity played in colonialism, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia...(the list goes on) etc.

This is really quite a generalizing statement.


You are an illiterate idiot who obviously has no understanding of what I actually meant at all. You are taking what I said completely upside-down. My point is that why would any genuine Marxists/Leninists need to believe in any kind of "religious figure" at all?

Plenty do and did. My bet is that they were more inquisitive and less faith based than yourself.


By the way, are you spiritually lost, Shankara? Didn't you say you were now a faithful Hindu? Don't you realise that the fundamentalist Christianity which I'm attacking and you are senselessly defending here has historically demonised and attacked Hinduism many times?

And Hinduism was the origin of the caste system and racial discrimination while Judaism provided the first known major political legacy of equality in the ten commandments. You're ignorant and ashamed. This is clear to see now.


You are one confused individual.

This is the definition of hypocrisy.

[Queercommie Girl]

You're really an ignorant, spiteful person. More knowledge is *never* a bad thing. More knowledge will only strengthen your position. You automatically assume that you know everything if you reject things like that. I think you're angry about social discrimination, which is fine. But parading around your ignorance in shameful fashion isn't going to help that, it's only going to hurt yourself in the long run.


"If the political line is wrong, the more knowledge you have, the more reactionary you become." - Mao Zedong

It's not knowledge itself that is intrinsically reactionary, but rather that information directly influences people and your ideological views tend to sway based on what theoretical circles you move around in.



The crime: political incorrectness. The argument: political incorrectness.

None of this is an argument.
Discrimination isn't abstract "political incorrectness", but a real social problem.

Arguing against discrimination is certainly not political incorrectness, at least not from a Marxist or socialist perspective.



This is really quite a generalizing statement.
It's a statement that applies quite well for Christian fundamentalism, even if it doesn't apply to all variants of Christianity. But I was talking about Christian fundamentalism.



Plenty do and did. My bet is that they were more inquisitive and less faith based than yourself.
Some did. So what? Some socialists also became "fifth-column" Nazbols, or New Labour style hypocrites. But the people who did the correct things mostly did not.



And Hinduism was the origin of the caste system and racial discrimination while Judaism provided the first known major political legacy of equality in the ten commandments. You're ignorant and ashamed. This is clear to see now.
Your ignorance it seems knows no bounds. Firstly, Judaism is not Christianity. In fact, the persecution of Jews in Medieval Europe by Christians was especially pronounced. Secondly, the original Judaism might be relatively more progressive than the original Hinduism say around 1000 BCE, but a lot of things have changed in human history since then - not something someone like you who still holds onto a Bronze Age understanding of God would understand, of course. I was specifically referring to the colonialism imposed by Western capitalism on India in more recent history.

Rather than comparing Hinduism and Judaism as they existed around 1000 BCE, a much more apt comparison would be between the Hinduism of pro-independence fighters like Gandhi and the Christianity of British colonialists.



This is the definition of hypocrisy.Shankara is now banned, you want to be banned too?

[Conquer or Die]

"If the political line is wrong, the more knowledge you have, the more reactionary you become." - Mao Zedong

It's not knowledge itself that is intrinsically reactionary, but rather that information directly influences people and your ideological views tend to sway based on what theoretical circles you move around in.

Yes, your theoretical views are shaped by what is around you. Unless you claim to hold utter truth then you can't hope to eliminate additional thought that doesn't fit into your theoretical views unless you wish to become a useless nonsense spitter. If you do have the the absolute truth then you should be able to stand it against scrutiny, which is what the process of reading "reactionary" material would do.

You can't defend ignorance, no matter how much you want to cry your way out of it.


Your ignorance it seems knows no bounds. Firstly, Judaism is not Christianity. In fact, the persecution of Jews in Medieval Europe by Christians was especially pronounced.

The relationship between Christianity and Judaism is complex, as is Judaism's relationship with Polytheistic and Moslem religions. The Jews were frequently persecuted, but their outstanding legacy has all but dominated, in an objectively more equalitarian and egalitarian way, the social discourse till now.


Secondly, the original Judaism might be relatively more progressive than the original Hinduism say around 1000 BCE, but a lot of things have changed in human history since then - not something someone like you who still holds onto a Bronze Age understanding of God would understand, of course. I was specifically referring to the colonialism imposed by Western capitalism on India in more recent history.

Western Imperialism was caused not by Religion but by the creation of new technology. Religion created the social hierarchy and operation of day to day life, but it's effects on imperialism are negligible. Christianity was operating more pervasively in the Dark Ages then in later western imperialism (which operated under the influence of Enlightenment thinking amongst the social elites) and the Christian world mostly fought a losing battle against the Moslems for a thousand years.


Rather than comparing Hinduism and Judaism as they existed around 1000 BCE, a much more apt comparison would be between the Hinduism of pro-independence fighters like Gandhi and the Christianity of British colonialists.

Gandhi was a well known racist. Hinduism still has a black caste system. There is no way to separate christianity from equality which it promoted against polytheistic religiosity which promoted, fundamentally, a greater separation of people and values.


Shankara is now banned, you want to be banned too?

Threats with no teeth. Even if you could back them up it would hardly be a blow to me.

[ComradeMan]

To be fair, not all sects of Christianity preach. It's mainly Protestant Evangelists.


I guess colonialism (with predominantly Catholicism as the religious aspect) sort of counted as "preaching," but that's an aside.

You're right- it takes one nutcase to decide to burn the Qu'ran or one paedo-priest and the next thing it's Christianity as a whole.

I have Jewish connections too. "Christianity" has had a very hostile relationship with "Judaism" but there was an economic basis to that too if you look deep down- it's money the root of evil I tell you!

[Astarte]

Even Christ says that most people will be damned to travel along the wide and straight road not the narrow winding road that leads to salvation. So what kind of omnipotent savior was he????

Matthew 7:13

13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

We need to think of this verse in a very esoteric, and metaphysical kind of way. He is talking about gnosis, and enlightenment or "salvation". The whole death and resurrection theme of spiritual ascendancy. I see it more in terms of the majority of the population never attain an enlightenment experience, so what most people follow as the "Truth", especially in terms of God is most likely wrong - and the correct path is actually quite obscure and can only be found subjectively.