Why you are not a good christian

It is never right to make fun at people or even shout at them, just because they don't believe in a Higher Power. It's also not right to do when they do believe in an Almighty Entity that apparantly can build entire planets in six days but can't even make us like one another. Or make chocolate icecream that's not fattening.

Why do people always want to be right?

Millions of people have died and will die because somewhere someone just has to be right.

It's okay to have different opinions. It's okay to say: 'Hey, with the new inormation I just got I realize I was previously wrong.'

It's even okay to try and fail. None of us are perfect. 

People claim to be a good muslim 'because they go to the mosque' and people claim to be a good christian 'because they attend church.' Non valid arguments of course. Unless they agree that sitting behind a drum kit makes me a good drummer.

Just consider this: if a family from the Middle East came to your town, desperately looking for food and shelter, would you turn them away claiming 'We can't support them because we don't have enough ourselves and they threaten our way of life!'? If so: congratulations, you just turned away Josef and his pregnant wife Mary.

Republicans love to contradict themselves

'If someone wants a beer the government shouldn't stop them. If someone wants to eat a very fattening hamburger that may result in heart failure they are entitled to do so. It's their body after all!'
-'Yes, of course! The government should not tell me what I can't put in my own body!'
'So you agree marihuana should be legalized.'
-'Er...what...? Er no...of course not!'
'But you just said - and I quote - 'Government should not tell me what I can't put in my own body!'
-'Well...er...yes. But that's not what I meant.'
'Please tell me what you did mean when you said it.'
-'Well...er..stop harrassing me!'
'Okay, fine. Something else then. In the USA every year about a thousand civilians are shot dead by cops. In England the number is zero. How do you explain that?'
-'Well, the English are cheating because none of them carry guns!'
'So you are saying that if guns were banned, people wouldn't get shot dead anymore?'
-'Well...er...yes. That's exactly what I mean!'
'So you would support a total ban on guns in America.'
-'Well...er...no...er...no, that's not what I was saying!'
'Please tell me what you were saying when you agreed people would not be killed anymore if guns were forbidden.'
-'Well...er...stop harrassing me!'

Can someone please explain this to me?

Republicans don't want government to interfere with people's lives. Right?

The government should not dictate its citizens!

People should be able to think, buy and say what they want. Right?

People should be able to believe what they want and hug who they want. Right?

So why do Republicans want the government to tell people what they should not buy or put in their own bodies (What's wrong with smoking marihuana? One in three adult Americans have at least once smoked pot), who they can't marry (what's the big deal when someone would marry someone of the same sex?) and what they're not allowed to think ('Hey, the idea of sharing what you have left over with someone who has less may be pretty good! Let's have a bit of socialism!')?

Why do so many people refuse to see the contradiction in there? Are they brainwashed or simply extremely stupid?

http://www.alternet.org/10-facts-will-blow-right-wingers-minds

Paris attacks. What now?

A friend of mine send me this article.

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/november/14/paris-you-don-t-want-to-read-this/

It states we should stop doing what hasn't been working for fourteen years and find other ways to stop terrorist attacks. Evidently: fighting violence with even more violence only leads to more violence. Doh! Strange thing also is that people are willing to give up all of their freedoms to prevent themselves being overrun by people who want to take away their freedoms.This double standard inspired me to create this 'lolcat':

'Daddy, why is there a fence around our town?' 

-'To protect us from people who want to lock us up, son.'

It's a very clear message. And a verifiable truth: more wars have stopped after peace talks than after more bombings so maybe those in powere should stop throwing bombs and start listening. All those warlords in Syria want power, money and acknowkledgment. Why not just give that to them? Make them all Pasha of their own little piece of land, the oil- and water rights that go with it. And a medal 'for bravoury'.

At least that's a whole lot cheaper and less destructive than bombing innocent civilians, hoping one of them was a member of IS or Al-Qaida.

It's been asked before: War, what it is it's good for?

Who doesn't love to murder innocent animals?

'Extreme huntress' Rebecca Francis claims she kills endangered animals in order to preserve them and feed the local population in the areas where she hunts. As if people who have been living in perfect harmony with all of nature are not capable of shooting a stationary 14ft peaceful creature in the head from close range with a high powered rifle and need a young white American christian woman to do their killing. She says she does it so the locals can use the animal for food, clothing and jewellery. Sure. If they are willing to travel a couple of thousand miles to Rebecca Francis' home, 'cause that's where she keeps her collection of dead animals.

What is it with people that they are willing to pay for the 'right' to kill endangered animals who have no means of protecting themselves against vicious hunters? Even if the species is not endangered: why kill an animal if you're not hungry?

And why is it a 'sport' to look through a gunsight and simply squeeze a trigger in order to brutally murder a beautiful animal?

If Rebecca Francis (http://rebeccafrancis.com/wp/) really wants to show off her skills she could just go to the fair and shoot all the sitting ducks. They're innocent too but at least they're not alive.

Read the full story here: http://distractify.com/alex-scola/tweet-tweet-bang-bang/?ts_pid=2

Socrates could not live in our time

The Greek philosopher Socrates started to work as a mason - just like his father - after he finished his student life. He later decided to dedicate his life to the art of philosophy. Governments in our day would call him lazy because he did not work for money. Your and my government would most likely have forced him to take on paid work. Had they done so in the olden days we would never have heard of the mason Socrates who challenged his co-workers by asking them silly questions and deny the existence of God(s) in public. Because he would never have spoken in public. Let alone have listened to the people in the streets, responding to his questions. His life purpose was to force people to think for themselves in stead of taking for granted what others (cleric, government, teachers, parents) told them. For that he finally was sentenced to death. Luckily not before some of his students reported some of his teachings.

http://www.biography.com/people/socrates-9488126#early-years