Yeah...I couldn't care less what does or doesn't happen to Christianity in the future. It's already lost a lot of influence here in the present, with all the various pedophilia scandals in the Catholic church and whatnot.
Really? Have you seen the resurgence of Christianity in the former USSR?
Besides that, how does Christians having more kids than atheists bode well for atheism?
Lenin's brand of authoritarian communism was about as far from syndicalism or socialism as it gets. Socialism is a set of economic principles, it isn't inherently inclusive or exclusive to any religion.
It wasn't Real Socialism, gotcha. Definitely never head that before.
Besides that, why do you as I presume a non-religious person have a personal commitment to any ideology? Shouldn't you commit only to those ideas that benefit you personally, regardless of originating ideology?
I was clearly referring to Trumpism there, not Christianity. Though as I've already explained, the former is incompatible with the latter, and has overtaken it in large part.
Have you studied the origins of the Nazi party in post-WWI Germany? Do you know what the Spartacist Uprising was? Do you know about the mass murder and genocide of Christians and kulaks in Ukraine, and how refugees fleeing that to Germany as well as attacks by the OG antifa on the center-right conservative party led to the rise of the Nazi party?
Repression always leads to fascism, yet the apparent goal of the left is to oppress Trump voters, who were happy to support a guy whose policies were those of a Democrat from 1994. This will lead to them going further right, not to capitulation (though it may seem like many are capitulating when they are actually going underground).
You should worry less about Trump and more about the guy who comes after him; and how the policies you support (outsourcing, scab labor for corporations, radical centralization of federal power under neo-libs like Clinton and Obama - and to be fair, neocons like Bush I and II) created Trump and will create something far worse for you and America than him.
He says, knowing full well Trump tried to start WW3 in week one of 2020, and continues to try to spark a second civil war. Let me guess, you probably voted GWB twice, too. "Warmongering neoliberal" is practically a compliment within the Republican party at this point.
I seem to remember Hillary Clinton promising to send troops to Ukraine to fight Russian soldiers on Russia's border. I also remember Democrats and Republicans first praising Trump when he bombed an empty tarmac in Syria, and then accusing him of being a Russian agent and impeaching him for not starting a war with Russia.
That you don't remember this indicates that you lack object permanence or that you are insincere. Neither bodes well for the rest of your arguments.
I first voted for Kerry, then Obama, then Ron Paul, and then Trump.
I'll give you this though, the traitors in the Republican can absolutely be called warmongering neoliberals. Unfortunately for America and the word, your boy Biden stacked his cabinet with Dubya alumni. If you were informed beyond parroting what your peers spew, you'd know this.
I won't make any excuses for Obama, our involvement in Libya was unnecessary. It was also very limited, which is why we won't be dealing with the fallout from it in twenty years like we are now with Afghanistan/Iraq.
Really? Ghaddafi's son is getting close to cleaning up the rebels/freedom-fighters/whatever, just in time for the Biden administration.
As for it being limited, there are slave markets for castrated sub-Saharan African men in Libya today. There are also millions of Libyans and sub-Saharan Africans in Western Europe right now largely because Ghaddafi was assassinated, there was no one to protect Libya's southern border, and there's money to be made in smuggling people to Germany, France, and Britain.
We may have avoided fallout from it, but Europe hasn't. Besides, Biden wants to increase refugee intake as much as he can. Another Libyan war would be just the ticket, and soon afterwards we'd get to experience the joys of even greater diversity.
No issue...by context alone you should've been able to figure out that I attended a public elementary school and a public high school, along with community college. And "bougie socialists?" Really?
Interesting response, more for what it doesn't say than what it does.
You seem to have a bit of trouble with reading comprehension. I didn't say there were zero church-run missions in my entire state, just that none of the ones closest to me are. My point about megachurches stands, and there's another argument to be made against the tax-exempt status of churches as well.
If you want to remove the tax-exempt status of chuches then it's only fair to do it for all charities, especially those who belong to the secular state religion that you espouse.
Megachurches are best broken up with vigorous fraud and white collar crime investigations and prosecutions.
Speaking of white collar crime, the two cities with the largest number of white collar crime convictions are New York and Salt Lake City. I leave it to you to figure out why, because neither of these cities are bastions of Christianity*.
*Mormons are about as Christian as Muslims, both in terms in text and historical behavior towards Christians. If you don't believe me, look into Mitt Romney's tenure at Bain Capital, the religious makeup of the towns whose livelihoods he sold to China, and his status as a Mormon.
Then I have good news for you. Jesus also doesn't like those pharisee and law abiders who study the law of Moses but did not practice the law of God (the 10 testaments). The bible also wrote that Jesus protects a woman who did adultery from being stoned and told people to check themselves before judging other people.
Did you miss the part where Jesus said, "Go and sin no more"? He was advocating for second chances, not a license to sin.
natural selection doesn't work like that. if anyone reproduces that doesn't have a religion (lots of people), it becomes a neutral evolutionary trait at best, and negative trait at worst (religious extermination). people have no sense of timescale since our year is 2021. in reality we have been fucking around with religion for ~70,000 years, and dicking with fire for almost 1,700,000-2,000,000 years. to put that in perspective, Christianity has existed for 0.119% of time since fire was discovered. there is evidence of belief in an afterlife, and other rituals as far back as 200,000BC. fuck a majority of Christians still don't believe in evolution even though we're watching the coronavirus mutate in real time.
the chances of ANYONE's religion being the right one is basically 0.
Consider the sociological implications of religion, not whether or not they are factually correct.
It's only neutral if it doesn't help or harm the odds of reproduction.
What I'm saying is it seems that political leanings are at least partially heritable, and absent the heavy hand of the patriarchy enforcing shotgun marriages and banning birth control, left-leaning people tend to not reproduce as much as those who lean right. It doesn't mean a lot in one or two generations, but like all things exponential once it gets going it stays going.
By not enforcing reproduction on everyone, and by erecting barriers to reproduction*, it ensures only those predisposed to fecundity and capable of sustaining themselves in a neoliberal/conservative hellscape such as our world reproduce.
*Barriers being:
1. Lack of affordable childcare due to destruction of extended families which leads to the need for both parents to work so a kid can be put in daycare.
2. Globalization increasing competition between workers, reducing the bargaining power of Labor, and making it more difficult for everyone but the most well-connected or those most willing to scam the system to have kids.
3. Increased housing costs due to increased migration, to which the Left responds with population density maps of the USA... as if we all want to live in a crowded favela.
4. Race to the bottom in product quality. Planned obsolescence is the only way that large firms can make money producing goods at scale. If Ford made 10 million trucks a year that last 40 years, in 10 years no one would need to buy any new trucks for a generation. This is intrinsic to scaled-up corporation systems of productions regardless of their stated economic system. China pays people to consume resources and pollute the environment making pointless junk because they need to keep the proles busy to avoid unrest, and as a form of mercantile imperialism against their foreign competition. The USA pays people to consume resources and pollute the environment making pointless junk so the current CEO can make another $40 million a year in stock options. They're both managed economies, they both are hideously destructive, and both should be rejected.
