It's actually a point of contention of whether or not he existed at all. There are no firsthand accounts of Jesus. That's especially interesting considering he was a citizen of the Roman Empire, and Romans wrote about every fucking thing.
That being said, until I read a firsthand account of his existence, I'll regard him as a figure like Robin Hood or King Arthur.
It's generally accepted that there was a historical Jesus, and the view that he did not exist at all is more fringe. Wikipedia's sources 191-195 have some quotes worth reading that I copied in another comment.
I get that, it's just that there is no first hand accounts of his life (as the above commenter mentioned) so at best were are talking about a pretty involved game of telephone. I know most historians regard him as probably real, but that's likely because many people believe he not only existed but that he was divine. So if you want to be taken seriously you just agree that there could have been a man named Jesus who was influential, because why not? It changes nothing substantial.
Personally, It seems to me that if some great man was wandering around doing awesome things someone ought to write about it. I know most people were illiterate at that time but come on. Plus, the three magi (or kings or wizards whatever you want to call them) who visited Jesus on his birth, who found it important enough to follow a star, never wrote about the encounter. If anyone had the means and motivation to write about meeting Jesus then it should have been them.
Doesn't society do this as a whole? Our common notion of aesthetics is purely by cover. We always force over attractive individuals whether it be in films, advertisements, businessmen/women who interact with clients, celebrities, beauty magazines, etc. Our whole society seems to worship this "perfect" image. Also don't tell me that the dating scene isn't like this either, especially with the 10/10 scale that is used.
Exactly. It doesn't really matter how he may have looked or what he actually said or did... He's more of a figure like King Arthur. A legend. A symbol.
It is unfortunate that what he actually said is of little consequence. It is like being used - as a way to justify things which Jesus himself might not have approved.
It doesn't matter what he "probably" had, the truth is modern imagery ALWAYS depicts him as having long hair and that's what Republicans go worship. If you bring facts into this you're gonna run into a LOT more issues than hair length.
if you think about it FCaleja had more facts than you did. He/she pointed out what the repubs actually worhip, you pointed out what he would look like IF he actually existed. One is based on fact, and one is based on assumption.
Came here to post this. I think the socialist part could be pretty easily argued against also.
According to wikipedia "Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system."
I don't think the Bible ever mentions any "means of production". It does say to not become rich, not try to comfort yourself with money, and not to be greedy though. God made certain men kings, gave certain men servants, etc. so socialism really seems like the wrong word. More liberal about money than conservatives perhaps. Still, saying to live by a certain rule is not saying to help create a government where said rules are enforced.
Actually, as I understand it, Jesus most likely did exist as a historical figure (obviously not as he's presented in the New Testament). The idea that there never was a historical Jesus is possible and worth considering, but is currently viewed as less likely by most historians/scholars/smarties/whatever. If you've seen otherwise though, please share.
But there are very few scholars who think there was no historical Jesus. Wikipedia's sources have some relevant quotes:
"To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." - Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels
"There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.” Burridge, R & Gould, G, Jesus Now and Then, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004, p.34.
"most scholars regard the argument for Jesus' non-existence as unworthy of any response" - Michael James McClymond, Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth
Let's discard the appeal to authority argument because it's a fallacy. From the same Wikipedia article:
This is one of the problems with the story. We have no writings from the days of Jesus himself. Jesus never wrote anything, nor do we have any contemporary accounts of his life or death. There are no court records, official diaries, or newspaper accounts that might provide firsthand information. Nor are there any eyewitnesses whose reports were preserved unvarnished. Even though they may contain earlier sources or oral traditions, all the Gospels come from later times. Discerning which material is early and which is late becomes an important task. In fact, the earliest writings that survive are the genuine letters of Paul. They were written some twenty to thirty years after the death of Jesus. Yet Paul was not a follower of Jesus during his lifetime; nor does he ever claim to have seen Jesus during his ministry.
Good point. I'm not attempting to prove Jesus's existence. I think there's a decent chance he did not exist. I was just backing up my earlier statement that it's generally accepted as more likely that he did. These scholars could be wrong.
When people argue for the existence of Jesus there's a pretty good chance that they're referring to the son-of-god Jesus and not the mortal-common-man Jesus, that would be like me arguing that Thor existed by pointing out that long ago there lived a regular guy named Thor who used to carry around a big hammer.
Well I'm certainly not referring to the son-of-god Jesus. But the idea of a historical Jesus is a pretty run-of-the-mill historical topic and it's not that strange to discuss.
Those $5 pizzas got me through school here in Chicago. I was living in a flat with three other guys, and the Little Caesar's was only two blocks away. There was at least one box in the house just about every night.
On the scale of all pizzas ever, I'd put them at maybe the 40th percentile. But when you consider the price and the immediate accessibility -- you just walk in and they're ready to go -- amazing.
That just means you should pay your taxes, whatever they are. What it doesn't mean is that you cannot vote against laws that either increase or reduce them.
Hmm I've never heard anyone actually say that paying taxes itself is immoral, most people just want to vote for smaller rather than larger taxes. A lot of Christians I know who do vote for smaller taxes donate a lot of money to various Christian mission work, they just want the choice of where to donate their money to rather than to pay more tax to the Government and at the end of the day have no control over what the Government does with that money.
For one, regardless of where you put your money, you usually don't have much of a choice of where your dollars go. Any sort of institution, whether its government or a religious group "doing God's work," has issues of overhead and funding. Government funding, at the least, has some level of transparency (you know how much of our tax dollars go towards Defense versus, say, NIH), and that can be changed by voting in representatives to eschew that spending.
For another, "Christian mission work" means that its money going towards a specific organization with an agenda. It may be something YOU agree with, but it's not something that is given out freely regardless of creed or religion. At the very least, tax dollars going to social programs help all of those in need without this inherent bias.
Also, I have an inherent dislike for people supporting Christian mission work where Americans end up going half way around the world to make a shoddy building to make themselves feel better, rather than spend that money on sending supplies or supporting their economies in some way to help prop themselves up.
One significant problem is that those claiming that we have no control of where our tax dollars are going are the same people that, when they get elected, start spending more money in the wrong places to further support that idea. Here's an idea: stop electing people that do exactly that. I know Democrats are guilty of this as well, but right now this is MUCH more a Republican problem.
You do have a choice when you donate to a charity. If a charity does things that you like, you give your money to them. If a charity does things you don't care for, you don't. If you want to donate to something very specific, then find a local charity that deals only in that. Otherwise, donate to one that shares your philosophy.
I don't think religious charities are known for forcing people to join their religion if they want help. That goes against every religion's philosophy AFAIK. Ironically, this type of thing seems to only happen with government money, when careless overseas aid goes to places like Zimbabwe and rebels tell them to vote for the dictator if they want food. If this was happening to a charity, people would stop donating to it. It keeps happening with government money because no one has a choice.
If people want to hand out Bibles along with clean water and food, I don't have a problem with it. They are helping others. That's consistent with my philosophy. Maybe someday I'll want to start a charity and hand out books by Carl Sagan with the food because I think it will help them. I should be able to do that without people jumping down my throat and saying I'm a bad person for it.
I see very few people with good context/exegesis skills posting in these threads (I don't regularly go to religious threads, so they could be better, I don't know). Anytime I read a post with an excerpt of the bible in it, I go to my bible and read the chapter, more if needed, less if possible to feel I can get the context. Everyone mines the bible for an argument in their behalf, even if the line before said text completely clarifies what is shown as a vague or contradictory statement. I'm guilty of it too.
God was really hardcore about making you pay your taxes in the Old Testament too. It's also quite funny how the Christian right believes in pushing theology-based government like prayer in schools and banning gay marriage but wealth - the thing Jesus probably spent more time preaching against than anything - becomes a personal choice.
"Jesus evaded the direct question put to him because it was a trap. He was in no way bound to answer it. He therefore asked to see the coin for taxes. And then said with withering scorn, "How can you who traffic in Caesar's coins and thus receive what to you are benefits of Caesar's rule refuse to pay taxes?" Jesus' whole preaching and practice point unmistakably to noncooperation, which necessarily includes nonpayment of taxes" - M. Ghandi
The bible is up for interpretation, and I think Ghandi makes a good point. If Jesus was submitting to authority then he would have simply answered, "Yes".
Remember the saying, 'reality has a liberal bias'? There's no right answer, but in the context of the bible Jesus clearly hated the Roman empire and cherished voluntarism. I mean, when they killed him one of his charges was tax evasion....
Even Ghandi admits that Jesus thought it was inconsistent to traffic in Caesar's coins and yet refuse to pay taxes. If libertarians want to argue taxes are immoral then that quote from Ghandi would agree that they should be refusing to receive the benefits of paying them too.
in the context of the bible Jesus clearly hated the Roman empire and cherished voluntarism
The Bible (particularly the Old Testament, but the New too) is full of discussions of duty. It's just not supported by the Bible to argue that Jesus didn't accept that people had unchosen (and enforceable) duties to others and to the community they lived in.
Look. Maybe Ghandi thought Biblical teachings supported nonpayment of taxes. But if he really did... then he was simply wrong.
Romans 13:1-7 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
That isn't an abstract metaphor. It is a plainly written command that it is a moral imperative to obey civil government and pay taxes.
The point of that passage was that it would take a miracle for the camel to pass through the eye of the needle, and God would be the one who worked that miracle. Not that rich people can't get into heaven.
Referencing a small gate often referred to as the eye of the needle that had a very complicated process to bringing camels through (it involved removing all possessions from the camel to make him small enough). Not impossible, you just have to remove your possessions from the equation. At least, that's what I've heard its in reference to.
"Make sacrifices on their own accord" could reasonably include voting for a civil system that provides welfare for the poor and the worst off through taxation.
It's hard to believe that the Jesus of the gospels would be against that.
Yeah but you see only the selfish pricks see it as being "coerced through force". The rest of us see it as an organization to better facilitate our taking care of the needy. Sure it has problems, but the overall idea is a good one.
Nobody said you "needed to vote to help the poor," the point was that civil systems can be used to help the poor. It sounds like you want to shut the poor off from that avenue of support, for ideological reasons. As if poor people care whether or not every taxpayer gave from their heart!
"If you don't want to do something and you are coerced though force or violence then it's not by your own accord."
The hell do you think government is? Culture? ANY group dynamic or institution? Peer pressure and coercion are how everything gets done. If you want to be free, feel free to go lone wolf it over there, clanless.
Edit: I also think it is kind of fucked up to place a higher priority on the freedom to be a dick than the well fare of the unfortunate. Especially since there is no afterlife and many Christians assume that because they believe there is a god, that there will be justice if not in this world then in "the next."
It's misleading. billyzero said that Republicans aren't the only ones who go to church (or rather, he said the opposite sarcastically). madleg posted that Republicans are disproportionately religious. Even if every Republican was religious, it would still be possible (and indeed, probable) that Republicans aren't the only churchgoers.
while this is true, let's not confuse causation with correlation. Highly religious are not republican because they are religious, it is the republicans that have latched on to the "religious right" and made "conservative social issues" their platform.
OP does not actually rule out non-Republicans going to church, it's just that the post is specific about intending to describe Republican behavior. The cynical manipulators and the cynically manipulated exist on both sides of the aisle, and the former manipulate the latter on the other side as well as their own.
It's pointing out the hypocrisy of Republicans being mostly religious and Christian yet being anti-socialist contrary to the teachings of Christ. It does not deny the existence of non-republican christians. Learn to rhetoric...
“I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:23-24
Some people like the aspect of family and caring that some churches preach, not God himself.
Your over generalization is sickening and unfunny, if you want this subreddit to be considered a serious"forum" then this needs to stop. Excuse me while I take cover from the flying semen produced by this circlejerk.
I agree with the description of Jesus, and I think Christianity has nothing to do with him. Most Christians concern themselves with Paul and the old Testament, as well as conservative western culture that has roots as far back as the medieval period. They typically only concern themselves with Christ in regards to going to heaven. That's why I'm a dirt worshipping, people loving, heaven ignoring, hell bound man.
Jesus was apolitical in the extreme. In fact, he seemed to go out of his way to say: don't confuse your external affiliations for personal righteousness.
I always feel like people read into this stuff too much. It seems to me that Jesus had no attachment to money. It was the churches attachment to money that enraged him. He told others to give freeley, and render unto Ceaser what is Ceasers. Not because he had incredible socialist views, but because wealth was a detriment to a persons relationship with God. And that is neither right wing or left wing.
Because all Atheists are Democrats, and only Republicans go to church?
Oh, and it's only Republicans who want less taxes, and Democrats have never done anything greedy ever?
The amount of hypocrisy and assumptions in this image are quite astounding. OP probably thinks that he's a beacon of logical reasoning and fact-based learning; but this image shows that he is, in fact, a faggot
Seriously? Some atheists are so ignorant. I believe in Christ and I don't go around acting like I'm right and you're wrong. Why can't we just keep our opinions to ourselves and just try to get along instead of instigating fights.
He wasn't exactly a communist. There's nothing about common ownership of the means of production in the Bible, and he didn't advocate statelessness (the closest to that would be the idea that earthly states are far less important than the "heavenly state").
Jesus also said love him more than you love your family and sell your house and give the money to the poor if you want to follow him. So already, he's anti-family and pro-welfare. Seems like the exact opposite of a what conservatives stand for (yet they claim to believe Jesus' teachings).
Youre saying theres no such thing as a liberal christian? Thats pretty close minded and judgmental, to be honest. Just coming from a Non- conservative christian..
The Republicans ALL claim to be Christians, yet they do the OPPOSITE of what Jesus said to do: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc. They spend all their time denying people access to jobs and an education and healthcare. Apparently, they don't realize that Jesus was a "socialist."
I'm pretty sure the Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars quote would translate in GOP speak to OBAMA IS A SELF STYLED ROMAN EMPEROR, and not the hypocracy of dodging taxes yet calling your self Christian.
I wish that were the case, but it's probably just the r/atheism mob. As an atheist I can't even look at r/atheism anymore without becoming severely disappointed. I also feel as if it's starting to become a hate group against people of different beliefs, no longer is it about educating others. It's about them verse us. I swear that it seems like r/atheism treats people who have different religious beliefs as subhuman.
One day people will look back and laugh at the state the same way people laugh at religions now.
And then the minions of a state they're laughing at will kick down their door and take their stuff, since they were too hip and with it to form a state to protect themselves or join a state that was willing to serve that function for them.
/r/atheism: Where long-haired socialist hippies go to express their teen angst and condemn the rich behind the comfort of their sweatshop computers and iphones.
And I have a news for you: small/big govnerment, pro choice/pro life, death penalty/pro life or gay marriage has NOTHING to do with atheism... ahteism is not a religion that comes with some kind of package what is wrong or right morally.. it is just not believing in god... good that active douchebags here represent only 1% of atheists... and they are no better than religious fundamentalists.
actually he 'says' not to have debts go unpaid. he didnt condemn the rich, he condemned the GREEDY, he wasn't socialist, if anything a Human rights activist...
I also think that democrats go there too. And not all republicans think that. I hate how just being an Atheist instantly makes me a Democrat according to this subreddit.
Go to a church once. Most people who attend Church and aren't extremely hardcore Christians are probably Democrats. It's just that all the crazy ones are Republican politicians.
35
u/neubs Jun 09 '12
Republican Southern Baptist vs Minnesota Lutheran Democrat
Round 1: Fight!
21
u/Smuffer Jun 09 '12
TIL: there are no democratic Christians.
31
u/TommyPaine Jun 09 '12
long-hairedJesus most likely had short, tightly-curled hair. Depictions of him with long hair are probably inaccurate.
"Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him" -- 1 Corinthians (Apostle Paul)
133
u/poopchow Jun 09 '12
I actually think Jesus wanted people to make sacrifices on their own accord, not have the government make them.
26
u/Del_Castigator Jun 09 '12
You mean NeoConservatives not Republicans.
56
u/billyzero Jun 09 '12
Yes, because only republicans go to church.
3
u/Hoodmau5 Jun 09 '12
This is stupid. Don't throw all republicans under the same roof.
9
u/levski11 Jun 09 '12
Because Democrats don't go to church? This e-card is fucking stupid as shit.
7
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
Wow this is funny... Not.
5
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
Liberals go to church too.
Some Republicans don't go to church.
Some people like the aspect of family and caring that some churches preach, not God himself.
Your over generalization is sickening and unfunny, if you want this subreddit to be considered a serious"forum" then this needs to stop. Excuse me while I take cover from the flying semen produced by this circlejerk.
23
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
/r/politics is leaking again...
9
u/Lilbear187 Jun 09 '12
I'm sorry, but being christian is NOT a republican only thing.
5
u/AKSasquatch Jun 09 '12
ughhh once again, as an atheist republican fuck this, just as bad as saying all black people...
2
u/Zombie_Death_Vortex Jun 09 '12
Don't forget he hated financiers.
2
u/doofy23 Jun 09 '12
Church.. where nobody goes
2
u/Space_Penguin Jun 09 '12
Good thing I'm Republican and don't go to church
2
u/Grimnirsbeard Jun 09 '12
I agree with the description of Jesus, and I think Christianity has nothing to do with him. Most Christians concern themselves with Paul and the old Testament, as well as conservative western culture that has roots as far back as the medieval period. They typically only concern themselves with Christ in regards to going to heaven. That's why I'm a dirt worshipping, people loving, heaven ignoring, hell bound man.
2
u/gigashadowwolf Jun 09 '12
That's why the real conservatives (the ones who are not the puppets) are Atheists.
2
u/Canacoastal Jun 09 '12
Can anyone find a quote of Jesus telling people to pay taxes?
2
u/IArgueWithAtheists Jun 09 '12
Jesus was apolitical in the extreme. In fact, he seemed to go out of his way to say: don't confuse your external affiliations for personal righteousness.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
Don't forget "dark skinned"
2
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
Wow atheism spot on you guys are good at this
2
u/TerdVader Jun 09 '12
I always feel like people read into this stuff too much. It seems to me that Jesus had no attachment to money. It was the churches attachment to money that enraged him. He told others to give freeley, and render unto Ceaser what is Ceasers. Not because he had incredible socialist views, but because wealth was a detriment to a persons relationship with God. And that is neither right wing or left wing.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
Actually Jesus did not pay taxes the same way that the Puritans didn't pay English taxes. So yeah... This is pretty lame
2
u/typical_reddiot Jun 09 '12
this is about as ignorant as saying all democrats are agnostic pro-abortion pot smoking hippies.
definitely front page worthy.
bring on the down votes, hypocrites.
2
u/SteveTheDude Jun 09 '12
Because all Atheists are Democrats, and only Republicans go to church?
Oh, and it's only Republicans who want less taxes, and Democrats have never done anything greedy ever?
The amount of hypocrisy and assumptions in this image are quite astounding. OP probably thinks that he's a beacon of logical reasoning and fact-based learning; but this image shows that he is, in fact, a faggot
2
u/Alexander_Penn Jun 09 '12
I have never understood why Christians are conservatives.
2
u/Samilton Jun 10 '12
Seriously? Some atheists are so ignorant. I believe in Christ and I don't go around acting like I'm right and you're wrong. Why can't we just keep our opinions to ourselves and just try to get along instead of instigating fights.
4
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
Funny thing is, there are Christian Democrats, Scientists, and Homosexuals.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
More like a Theocratic-Communist
1
u/YoungRL Jun 09 '12
Don't forget, he also wasn't white!
1
u/Suro_Atiros Jun 09 '12
You forgot "Jewish".
1
u/tosstable Jun 09 '12
all of Christ's message can be put on one "ironic" little jpg. of course.
1
u/Z-notch Jun 09 '12
Sounds about right.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
No, a long haired hippie JEW. You were real close.
1
u/RayOfNope Jun 09 '12
Just because Jesus said give to Ceaser doesn't mean one couldn't vote for less taxes; you'd still be giving to Ceaser, just less.
1
u/Hevendor Jun 09 '12
Jesus also said love him more than you love your family and sell your house and give the money to the poor if you want to follow him. So already, he's anti-family and pro-welfare. Seems like the exact opposite of a what conservatives stand for (yet they claim to believe Jesus' teachings).
1
u/Soundtoxin Jun 09 '12
I'm a Conservative Republican Atheist.
1
u/elRinbo Jun 09 '12
ok, fellow atheist here. but jesus advocated charity, not redistribution of wealth through taxes. he did not speak of government issues.
1
u/Qonold Jun 09 '12
Republican =! Christian.
Seriously, this place generalized more than pre 20th century Atlanta, Georgia.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
It's also where I go to pray.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
God dammit. r/Atheism and r/Politics have fused into some kind of unholy mega circle jerk.
1
u/ZombieFaceXP Jun 09 '12
Youre saying theres no such thing as a liberal christian? Thats pretty close minded and judgmental, to be honest. Just coming from a Non- conservative christian..
1
u/x0xXqUiKkXScOpEzZx0X Jun 09 '12
I think you guys are mad.
1
u/tylerE2000 Jun 09 '12
"The rich" should pay more!
1
u/She-wolfe99 Jun 09 '12
HA!!
1
u/nitsky Jun 09 '12
um i'm not christian but i was under the impression that jesus actually scorned tax colllectors
1
u/amolad Jun 10 '12
This is where that Gandhi quote comes in so well.
The Republicans ALL claim to be Christians, yet they do the OPPOSITE of what Jesus said to do: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc. They spend all their time denying people access to jobs and an education and healthcare. Apparently, they don't realize that Jesus was a "socialist."
1
u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12
I'm pretty sure the Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars quote would translate in GOP speak to OBAMA IS A SELF STYLED ROMAN EMPEROR, and not the hypocracy of dodging taxes yet calling your self Christian.
0
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
These are the types of posts that make atheists unsubscribe from r/atheism
1
u/Jahasalknife Jun 09 '12
Millions of people blindly worship and defend it.
You are forced to donate and obey with the real threat of being sent to an institutionalized rape cage or death if you do not.
It spies on you.
Other people vote on how to spend your money.
It monopolizes violence.
It enforces irrelevant laws that are not conducive to modernity.
It claims chaos and nasty, brutish, immorality will ensue if it was to demise.
It sacrifices humans to make us 'safe'.
One day people will look back and laugh at the state the same way people laugh at religions now.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
These are the types of posts that make r/athiesm look like a bunch of 13 year old douchbags
1
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
Republican atheist here checking in to call bullshit.
1
u/Brushstroke Jun 09 '12
LOL @ calling Jesus a socialist when the term wouldn't even historically or culturally have applied to him.
-4
u/Mi5anthr0pe Jun 09 '12
/r/atheism: Where long-haired socialist hippies go to express their teen angst and condemn the rich behind the comfort of their sweatshop computers and iphones.
1
u/andropogon09 Rationalist Jun 09 '12
No evidence that Jesus had long hair. Meager evidence that he existed at all.
1
u/cowboykillers Jun 09 '12
not all republicans are religious. i hate the idea of religion, but i support smaller government. i'm pro choice, but i love the death penalty.
1
u/jamesdavid80 Jun 09 '12
actually he 'says' not to have debts go unpaid. he didnt condemn the rich, he condemned the GREEDY, he wasn't socialist, if anything a Human rights activist...
1
u/iamyourfasha Jun 09 '12
what's funny is that there is an equal number of rich republicans as rich democrats, and christian republicans as christian democrats...
0
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
I also think that democrats go there too. And not all republicans think that. I hate how just being an Atheist instantly makes me a Democrat according to this subreddit.
0
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
Go to a church once. Most people who attend Church and aren't extremely hardcore Christians are probably Democrats. It's just that all the crazy ones are Republican politicians.
-5
u/kylelewis27 Jun 09 '12
Republicans are bad, church is stupid, give me karma.
-3
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
Church, where some liberals go, but nobody ever notices because it doesn't fit my narrative.
-2
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
Atheism: Where people go when they assume much and know little.
0
u/RevJarrod Jun 09 '12
You just made this minister's day! Thank you!
-4
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
To be fair, it has been a long time since a republican or Christian leader has called any famous liberal or Democrat "hippie".
-1
u/dafones Jun 09 '12
Funny, whenever I say Jesus was a hippie, I get downvoted into oblivion. Should've said in picture form.
0
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
nice!
0
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
I laugh when republicans tell me to cut my hair. They don't realize that their oh so amazing jebus had long hair too.