>"There's a reason communism requires atheism." New Harmony, Idaho. Christian, Communist. The book "utopia" was a Christian account of communism being the ideal system for mankind. Trotskyites, also a large amount of Christians who also support communism. The idea that communism requires atheism is as ridiculous as the idea that communism began with Marx and Engels. It's not true, has not been true for most of history, the soviet unions was the first to embrace the now familiar communism = state atheism, but even after the rise of the soviet union, there were Christian communist groups throughout the united states and beyond. Communism and Christianity were never far apart from one another, and most communists in history were Christians, only when the days of the industrial age came round did communism go for a more atheistic approach, and those regimes were the most popular examples of communism. But you said communism requires atheism, and that is evidently not true for anyone who knows their history. >"Few religions have more zealots than atheism." Even today, islam has more zealots, Christianity has more zealots, heck, even buddhism and hinduism have more zealots than atheists do, even after you take into account all the ZOGbots of the first world, these account for a minoriy of their national populations, the only way you could say this is if you are ignorant of the rest of the world, or intentionally being disingenuous. "Atheism's biggest and most prominent leaders have always been jews. As zealots they exist to destroy and subvert." What "leaders"? Richard Dawkins? Sam Harris? Daniel Dennett? Voltaire? Neitzsche? Hume? Atheism's "leaders" (most significant thinkers) are mostly gentiles, and this has always been the case throughout history. Also, you are one to talk, your biggest Christian apologists of the last fifty years have all been kikes, (((Mike Cernovich))), (((Milo Yianopolous))) (who is also a fag), (((Jordan Peterson))), (((Dennis Prager))), etc. look at the largest names in "based" Christianity and you got jews and judeophiles out the wazoo. Maybe they don't count, and you only count the indisputable leaders of Christianity, Jesus and his followers. All the disciples of Christ were jews, notably, Paul was a tax collector, and Jesus was a rabbi, etc. Even if they weren't ethnically jewish, they were very much so culturally and religiously, also philosophically (even as schismatics, they weren't of a non-jew mindset). They were circumcised, they observed jewish holidays, they obeyed and enforced jewish law (from the same pharisees that they would later hate), they would hate on whites like the Egyptians, Romans, and Canaanites, and their persecutors were jews of the same religious community that they came from, meaning that if they were gentiles, then so too were the pharisees who took the blood of Christ upon themselves for his execution, to doubt this is equivalent to saying that there is a doubt as to whether all the pups from the same mother dog's litter were dogs just because half of them were dogs. The whole reason the pharisees got the Romans to kill Christ was that Jesus was a jew: under jewish law, it would be murder to kill a fellow jew, but this does not apply to the gentiles, so they could have just offed him if they thought he was a gentile, instead they got the romans to do it for them, as the jewish law allows for them to do murder of a fellow jew indirectly, such as through a roman judge. For more evidence, they thought like jews, the teachings of Jesus and his followers were very much pro-communist and pro-globalist: - Break up the family, hate everyone and yourself, the world must not be changed, but endured until death (which should be welcomed, especially if violent). - Sell all your things, give the money away ("sword" refers to the gospel, which causes division between father and son, mother and daughter, brother and sister, etc. he was not talking about literal swords, and was not talking about violence when he said " I have not come to bring peace, but a sword" he was talking about casing chaos among the jews with his schism). - Slaves should serve their masters without complaint, even when said masters are abusive, the oppressed should tolerate tyranny because they get their reward after death for not fighting against it, victims should not only passively accept abuse, but go out of their way to do good to those who subject them to injustices. - All crimes are equal, so judge and punish no one, the law can be ignored (not changed, ignored). - Welcome foreigners into your land, invite strangers into your homes, then give them all the gibs you can, expect them to wrong you, do charity for them in response (open borders and showing preference to migrants as a religious commandment). - Jesus in his earlier merchant-whipping days was a contradiction to him in his later days were he was preaching this stuff, what do you do when your messiah changes his mind? you go with whatever he said last, unfortunately, it's all this globo-commie crap. - Even if you go with the earlier Jesus, who whipped the money-changers at the temple steps, at that time he was in love with the pharisees you hate so much, the time of his change to preaching commieshit was also the time when he started calling the pharisees a "den of vipers" and "fake jews" and "of their father, the devil" was after he was formally rejected as he prophesied messiah. Before then he was singing the praises of the pharisees, saying their authority as just because they were appointed by God, and that they should be heeded, how he came to fulfill the law and not oppose it, how the pharisees were blessed by God (his father), and more statements of "these guys are legit and i endorse them". It's almost as if Jesus was acting like a person and not some messiah, he's pissed at the pharisees for rejecting his claim's legitimacy, and that where his change in attitude came from, he's going against the law with all this hippie Jesus stuff that contradicts the oral law as detailed in the OT and Talmud, actions that are perplexing for an unchanging son of God on a mission, are totally understandable as the reaction of a mortal man to being denied a position of power in his community. On good grounds too, he was not "emmanuel" because he was born out of wedlock, as a bastard, he is sinful from the beginning, he is not an heir to the line of David, because the biblical geneology of Jesus traced him to David through Joseph, who was not his father by blood, and he failed the test he was given to see if he knew and abided by the law, instead of calling for the man the woman caught in adultery was found with, he instead equated the sins which were expected and could be forgiven with the sins that were unforgivable and could only be cleansed by the imposition of death upon the sinners. In short, he flunked the messiah auditions in three major ways. Even by his own standards he fails, because he gets angry, and also preaches that those who get angry are equivalent to murderers in the eyes of God, he gets envious, and according to his own words, that makes him equivalent to a thief in the eyes of God. Jesus also made a prophecy that the endtimes would come within the lives of his followers, as one of them would be alive to see it, a prophecy that failed long before the bible was canonized. - The Bible is unworkable if you go by the commandments of Jesus and give them priority over the older laws, which hold true if there is no contradiction, which was how the Bible was intended to be followed, Christians would have died out quickly if that had happened (Jesus wouldn't have cared, as he would have said that it doesn't matter is Christianity died out so long as those who followed him got into heaven, his ideology was never intended to last for a long time). So for most of human history, most Christians were biblically illiterate (as well as just plain illiterate) and it was an expected practice of the church to selectively quote and misrepresent the words of the Bible in order to socially engineer the behaviors of their flock (it was for this reason that there was such a violent response to the idea of Christians reading the Bible, they would realize that following the religion as it was intended to be followed would be self-destructive). You are someone that was dealt with long ago, in the 1990's and 2000's, an old school Christian apologist with tired and defeated non-arguments that equate to just trying to give us a bad image. back then your type were calling us "nazis" and comparing us to Hitler, saying atheism led to racism because of evolution, and because back then you said that people without morals are racists, you were also pointing out how few blacks we had among us compared to you Christians. Now you call us jews and communists and egalitarians, because here that is the most hated thing to be, but everything else is the same, and no one who was alive back then would be able to take you seriously now. We've seen you before, and you are either an opportunist apologist using the far right like a new fad among the youth that you can rebrand Christianity and atheism to, or a paid shill sent to cause disruption and subversion (evidence in that you accuse atheists of that).