The Last Supper.

She will become the the last supper some day.

There are no absolute logical principles <---- including that one. This is simply another way of describing the problem of induction and under determination. Like so many philosophical arguments you have attacked my position based upon the language it was described in and not due to its underlying thought process. This has resulted in a fallacy. Language merely conveys knowledge, it does not in an of itself contain it (and excellent example incidentally of what I was talking about).

Your argument eats itself. If there aren't any absolute laws of logic (including that one), then there are no rules period, and thus no logic. If there is no such thing as logic then I could say "The cucumber faints west in the umbrage" and it would be an entirely valid response to anything you say. Yet you continue to make absolute statements like:

"All principles (save the observation "thinking exists") can only ever derived by induction."

"This is the case because one can never know for certain if any or all of ones experiences are fabrications"

"you can't ever be certain about any judgement one makes about the universe or anything in it because one cannot observe an exhaustive perspective"

The sea cucumber faints west in the umbrage, my friend.

All principles (save the observation "thinking exists") can only ever derived by induction. This is the case because one can never know for certain if any or all of ones experiences are fabrications, and furthermore that they never encompass all possible variables/possibilities. To put it another way, you can't ever be certain about any judgement one makes about the universe or anything in it because one cannot observe an exhaustive perspective (i.e. all of time and space for the thing in question). Thus there may always exist an example that could falsify your assumption. e.g. if I inducted that all swans are white because I had only ever seen white swans I would ultimately be incorrect as black swans can be observed to exist. Unless you can verify the entirety of existence across time there might always exist and experience/example to falsify any objective assertion. (you could be a brain in a jar, you can't prove 100% that your not)

No, I can't 100 percent prove I am not actually a circus peanut dreaming I'm a man, but it doesn't matter what I can prove to you. What matters is what is true. You have absolute freedom to live in total denial of reality if you want to, but reality isn't what we dictate it is. Just because you have no way of figuring it out doesn't mean no one does. The one who does have it figured out is God, because He created it. Because He is God He can make us absolutely certain of who He is and what He wants from us, transcending all physical or mental rationale.

^ Pardon me? Did you even read what I wrote by way of explanation for that? What part of "everything is permitted" even remotely precludes me (or anyone) from anything, let alone arguing against Christianity?!?!?

If everything is permitted then it is equally valid not to permit, which means you have no argument. Your way isn't better than any other way according to your logic so all that you can argue is that you prefer it.

What I felt I'd explained fairly clearly was the idea that the only demonstrable moral authority was yourself, or to put it another way that there are no moral authorities to be found anywhere else but within peoples minds.
Even if God himself speaks to you directly, that is an experience reducible only to the mind because ALL EXPERIENCES WITHIN HUMAN CONCEPTION OCCUR IN or at best VIA THE MIND!

I can't prove God exists to you, but He can. God isn't hiding from you; He has been knocking on your door your entire life. It's your choice whether you want to open the door, but you are going to meet Him one day regardless of what you choose.

Nothing has ever happened to any human being anywhere that was not experienced entirely in the mind (notice I didn't say "brain" ). When you see a chair you don't see the photons of light hitting your retina, you see something your mind made up to be representative (at best) of whatever phenomenon your eyes detected.

With that in mind (<- mind lol), "everything is permitted". The universe will continue on, unmoved by our moralities (or lack of). Only other humans will cry or rejoice at your actions and only within the sovereignty of your own mind will you find an irrefutable and absolute moral judge...

I was created before I had a mind. The Universe has a beginning, it was created, and the Creator is the judge.

Apart from all the same major dates for festivals and holy days (25th dec etc.),

The Catholics borrowed those from the Pagans..you won't find those in the bible.

the entire symbology of dieing on a cross for three days then being resurrected, the "last supper" with 12 disciples, 3 wise men from the east bearing gifts. etc. etc.

Sources?

I'd have more time for the Christian counter argument that the Mithraists stole this stuff from them if the same themes, dates and symoblogy didn't pop up in ancient cultures going back a few 1000 years over and over and over. The list of Messianic figures with the above characteristics in western folklore & myth is so long its almost a joke! & naturally is no co-incidence as they are describing the movement of the heavens (specifically the sun) by way of allegory. Speaking of which..

Let's see some sources..

But then the Catholic Church did it level best to suppress and destroy any trace of Gnosticism through the ages so its no surprise to me that you're not entirely familiar with it. (most people haven't even heard of it and those that do tend to be under the misapprehension that its a Christian thing (again understandable under the circumstances))

I know exactly what it is and I am very familar with it.

I'll come with you a little on that one. Before Rex Mundi (Jehova) showed up to fk everything up for them the Kabbalistic (and essentially Pagan) Jews possessed great wisdom and insight. Naturally not all of this was lost! (though after Solomon passed it would appear a regrettably large amount was)

Abraham is the father of the Jewish people and he worshiped the LORD.

I'm not sure I even want to grace that with a response. How could you possibly know what came from the mouth of God to a man 2000 years ago? If you say "because it says in the bible" please don't expect a sensible reply (I'm happy to fight non-sense with none-sense)

Because I know Him personally and His Spirit lives within me.

^This one amused be greatly. I would say Buddhism & Zoroastranism were clearly superior for exactly that reason but that's not what I think you were alluding to? I assume you were suggesting that certain parts of the whole Jesus shebang could only have come from Jesus/God/Holy spirit because he made himself the centre of attention?

To be a Christian is to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Therefore there is no Christianity without Him. He is the only way to know God:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

He wasn't pointing to Himself, He was pointing to God.

This is why I make a very distinct separation between the "Jesus" and the "Christ". Christ (or anointed one) goes back at least to Egypt. Horus is clearly "Christ" by basically any sensible measure I can think of, and by "Christ" I mean the "Sun of God" i.e. the freaking Sun.

This also forms the basis for an "as above so below" parable/allegory for the spiritual journey to enlightenment. You can find your way to heaven and God via the "Sun of God's" wisdom. No Miracle performing hippie Jew's were required before and I fail to see how sprouting the same fundamental idea just with a figurehead for a disenfranchised Jewish noble family anchored to everything helps?

You do realize that the word son and the word sun, in hebrew or in egyptian, aren't even remotely similar don't you? The word Christ does mean the anointed one, that is what the Messiah is. Jesus *is* the Christ. In regards to Horus being Christ, and a lot of other things you said, please take a look at this:

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/#horus

Are there some pearl's of Jesus's wisdom I missed? Thus far I have yet to come across anything that didn't strike me as either a rewording of things wise men had preached for 1000's of years previously, or a power play by an unscrupulous or deluded individual.

Read the gospel of John and pray to God and ask Him to help you understand it.

I happen to know its hotly contested even to this day but lets for the sake of this just take it as a given. When I said "at best a fabrication" it was because I consider the historical figure to be an impostor and a fraud. If anyone was a "true" messiah then John the Baptist and moreover Simon Magus are far better contenders but then that's a colossal can of worms I'm not sure I can be bothered to open at the moment.

John the baptist said he wasn't the Messiah and Simon was outdone by Philip.

I'll just say in summary that I am of the opinion that Mr. Ben Yosef and his crew were plotting to return the house of David to power but largely failed in the end as the Roman establishment usurped most of the legacy they tried to create (though not entirely).

The missing part of this theory is the explanation for the empty tomb.

Either way they worshiped and championed a being (Psychological archetype) which I feel I have little choice but to call Satan i.e. the God of Abraham. This alone is a pretty major indictment for me and any historic figure that puts said "being" at the center of their belief system will garner my suspicion.

How can the God that appeared to Abraham be anything but malevolent if the accounts in the Torah and Quran are accurate?

The quran isn't accurate, but if you read the Old Testament without humanistic glasses on, you'll find it was the humans who were malevolent and God was who long suffering with them.

@ shinyblurry

This had already turned into an essay and I didn't want to take up even more room by quoting you verbatim so I've tried to break it down to save space.



1. "Except that?"

There are no absolute logical principles <---- including that one.
This is simply another way of describing the problem of induction and under determination. Like so many philosophical arguments you have attacked my position based upon the language it was described in and not due to its underlying thought process. This has resulted in a fallacy. Language merely conveys knowledge, it does not in an of itself contain it (and excellent example incidentally of what I was talking about).

2. "Is that absolutely true?"

All principles (save the observation "thinking exists") can only ever derived by induction. This is the case because one can never know for certain if any or all of ones experiences are fabrications, and furthermore that they never encompass all possible variables/possibilities. To put it another way, you can't ever be certain about any judgement one makes about the universe or anything in it because one cannot observe an exhaustive perspective (i.e. all of time and space for the thing in question). Thus there may always exist an example that could falsify your assumption. e.g. if I inducted that all swans are white because I had only ever seen white swans I would ultimately be incorrect as black swans can be observed to exist. Unless you can verify the entirety of existence across time there might always exist and experience/example to falsify any objective assertion. (you could be a brain in a jar, you can't prove 100% that your not)


3. "Including not permitting..which means you have no further argument against Christianity."

^ Pardon me? Did you even read what I wrote by way of explanation for that? What part of "everything is permitted" even remotely precludes me (or anyone) from anything, let alone arguing against Christianity?!?!?

What I felt I'd explained fairly clearly was the idea that the only demonstrable moral authority was yourself, or to put it another way that there are no moral authorities to be found anywhere else but within peoples minds.
Even if God himself speaks to you directly, that is an experience reducible only to the mind because ALL EXPERIENCES WITHIN HUMAN CONCEPTION OCCUR IN or at best VIA THE MIND!

Nothing has ever happened to any human being anywhere that was not experienced entirely in the mind (notice I didn't say "brain" ). When you see a chair you don't see the photons of light hitting your retina, you see something your mind made up to be representative (at best) of whatever phenomenon your eyes detected.

With that in mind (<- mind lol), "everything is permitted". The universe will continue on, unmoved by our moralities (or lack of). Only other humans will cry or rejoice at your actions and only within the sovereignty of your own mind will you find an irrefutable and absolute moral judge...

As for the other bits

A. "The earliest records of Mithraism bear no similarity to Christianity at all....."

Apart from all the same major dates for festivals and holy days (25th dec etc.), the entire symbology of dieing on a cross for three days then being resurrected, the "last supper" with 12 disciples, 3 wise men from the east bearing gifts. etc. etc.

I'd have more time for the Christian counter argument that the Mithraists stole this stuff from them if the same themes, dates and symoblogy didn't pop up in ancient cultures going back a few 1000 years over and over and over. The list of Messianic figures with the above characteristics in western folklore & myth is so long its almost a joke! & naturally is no co-incidence as they are describing the movement of the heavens (specifically the sun) by way of allegory. Speaking of which............

Pagan & Gnostic traditions are deeply intertwined to the point where one could consider many examples to be one and the same. Mithraism would be one such example. Pagan just means many Gods/worship of nature & archetypes in the human psyche. Mithraism fulfils this definition but it also fulfils the Gnostic one i.e. it teaches that one finds god of and within oneself, not as an external force, or indeed a force which is separate from oneself.

But then the Catholic Church did it level best to suppress and destroy any trace of Gnosticism through the ages so its no surprise to me that you're not entirely familiar with it. (most people haven't even heard of it and those that do tend to be under the misapprehension that its a Christian thing (again understandable under the circumstances))


B. "Actually, they came from a progressive revelation of Judiasm which preceeded all of that."

I'll come with you a little on that one. Before Rex Mundi (Jehova) showed up to fk everything up for them the Kabbalistic (and essentially Pagan) Jews possessed great wisdom and insight. Naturally not all of this was lost! (though after Solomon passed it would appear a regrettably large amount was)


C. "What Jesus did not teach that came from Judiasm was wholly His and entirely unique, and they came from the mouth of God Himself."


I'm not sure I even want to grace that with a response. How could you possibly know what came from the mouth of God to a man 2000 years ago? If you say "because it says in the bible" please don't expect a sensible reply (I'm happy to fight non-sense with none-sense)


D. "The difference is Jesus Himself. You could take buddha out of buddhism, or zoroaster out of zoroastrianism and you would still have something. Without Jesus there is no Christianity."

^This one amused be greatly. I would say Buddhism & Zoroastranism were clearly superior for exactly that reason but that's not what I think you were alluding to? I assume you were suggesting that certain parts of the whole Jesus shebang could only have come from Jesus/God/Holy spirit because he made himself the centre of attention?
This is why I make a very distinct separation between the "Jesus" and the "Christ". Christ (or anointed one) goes back at least to Egypt. Horus is clearly "Christ" by basically any sensible measure I can think of, and by "Christ" I mean the "Sun of God" i.e. the freaking Sun.
This also forms the basis for an "as above so below" parable/allegory for the spiritual journey to enlightenment. You can find your way to heaven and God via the "Sun of God's" wisdom. No Miracle performing hippie Jew's were required before and I fail to see how sprouting the same fundamental idea just with a figurehead for a disenfranchised Jewish noble family anchored to everything helps?

Are there some pearl's of Jesus's wisdom I missed? Thus far I have yet to come across anything that didn't strike me as either a rewording of things wise men had preached for 1000's of years previously, or a power play by an unscrupulous or deluded individual.


E. "The Jesus myth theory isn't taken seriously by even skeptical bible scholars. There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than for Alexander the Great."

I happen to know its hotly contested even to this day but lets for the sake of this just take it as a given. When I said "at best a fabrication" it was because I consider the historical figure to be an impostor and a fraud. If anyone was a "true" messiah then John the Baptist and moreover Simon Magus are far better contenders but then that's a colossal can of worms I'm not sure I can be bothered to open at the moment. I'll just say in summary that I am of the opinion that Mr. Ben Yosef and his crew were plotting to return the house of David to power but largely failed in the end as the Roman establishment usurped most of the legacy they tried to create (though not entirely).
Either way they worshiped and championed a being (Psychological archetype) which I feel I have little choice but to call Satan i.e. the God of Abraham. This alone is a pretty major indictment for me and any historic figure that puts said "being" at the center of their belief system will garner my suspicion.

How can the God that appeared to Abraham be anything but malevolent if the accounts in the Torah and Quran are accurate?

(I hope that made sense towards the end, getting very late & tired here...)

Thanks!

In reply to this comment by Lann:
*quality *doublepromote

>> ^shinyblurry:
Having a glass of wine is not abusing drugs. It is a sin to be drunk, it is also a sin to drink to get buzzed, but it is not a sin to have a glass of wine with Jesus at the last supper.

Ahem.

>> ^shinyblurry:
A Christian does not use drugs receationally

Having a glass of wine with dinner is "using drugs recreationally". Alcohol is a drug. If you're drinking wine, you're not doing it for medicinal or nutritional purposes, so you're using it recreationally.

When Jesus turned the water into wine, why didn't he just tell the people to drink water?

Answer: because only an asshole would serve water to his guests at a party.

The wonderful process by which yeast turns sugar into alcohol is one of the few arguments I'll accept that if there is a god, he might not be totally indifferent to us.

Having a glass of wine is not abusing drugs. It is a sin to be drunk, it is also a sin to drink to get buzzed, but it is not a sin to have a glass of wine with Jesus at the last supper. I don't drink any alcohol, and I don't think anyone should, but there isn't going to be condemnation for drinking one glass of wine. The wine also probably had a very low alcohol content.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
This is a Christian:
Luke 9:23-25
If anyone would come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow Me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for Me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?
If you do these things you will not inherit the kingdom of God:
Galatians 5:19-21
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Everyone is guilty of breaking some of these, but we are to repent and change our ways. The word sorcery in the greek is pharmakeia, which is where we get the word pharmacy. It is specifically referring to drug use, especially as it pertains to idolatry. A Christian does not use drugs receationally, nor approve of their use. It is also violation of federal law to smoke marijuana.
>> ^Duckman33:
See? Even Jesus Christ wants it to be legal!

>> ^brycewi19:
Is no one noticing the pure awesomeness of who, in fact, sifted this?


So those 12 dudes hanging out with JC at the last supper drinking wine, they weren't Christian? Good to know.

>> ^shinyblurry:

This is a Christian:
Luke 9:23-25
If anyone would come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow Me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for Me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?
If you do these things you will not inherit the kingdom of God:
Galatians 5:19-21
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Everyone is guilty of breaking some of these, but we are to repent and change our ways. The word sorcery in the greek is pharmakeia, which is where we get the word pharmacy. It is specifically referring to drug use, especially as it pertains to idolatry. A Christian does not use drugs receationally, nor approve of their use. It is also violation of federal law to smoke marijuana.

>> ^Duckman33:
See? Even Jesus Christ wants it to be legal!

>> ^brycewi19:
Is no one noticing the pure awesomeness of who, in fact, sifted this?


So those 12 dudes hanging out with JC at the last supper drinking wine, they weren't Christian? Good to know.

The paintings it is based on, thanks to basilisk on Reddit:

• Last Supper by da Vinci
• The Birth of Venus by Boticelli
• The Anatomy Lesson by Rembrandt
• On the right, Girl with a Pearl Earring by Vermeer; on the left one of the Portraits of Henry VIII by Holbein
• The Raft of the Medusa by Géricault
• The Death of Marat by David
• The Creation of Adam by Michelangelo

• The Son of Man by Magritte
• Composition with Large Red Plane by Mondrian
• one of Frida Kahlo's self-portraits
• Portrait of Dora Maar Seated by Picasso
• The Scream by Munch
• The 1899 self-portrait by Van Gogh
• Ten Marilyns by Andy Warhol

• Gabrielle d'Estrées et une de ses soeurs by unknown
• Maestá by Cimabue
• Salome by Caravaggio
• Olympia by Manet
• Liberty Leading the People by Delacroix
• Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden by Dix
• The Kiss by Klimt

• La Mariée by Chagall
• Las Meninas by Velázquez
• One of the Sunflowers by van Gogh, probably the Third Version

Holy Spam Batman!

>> ^oklanap:
So, this post is very nice! This make me think what if there's really the zombie's last supper, what would happen to the painting of the real last supper!??.. Anyone who think of this idea may be aware of the present economy on how zombies in politics ruin the government.Unemployment rates for older workers have increased in this recession more than in past recessions, and the unemployment rate for adults over age 65 is at an all-time high.Microsoft is always bound and determined to succeed and overachieve in anything that they do – including Microsoft layoffs! Always people to go above and beyond the call of duty, the dearth of ivory back scratchers at corporate headquarters led the charge in [zombie spam link deleted] Microsoft layoffs, and expanded the first layoff drive in company history from 5,000 to 5,800!

I was told it was a dupe, someone else did appear to have it in their personal queue for much longer than I. They would probably greatly appreciate the promote, though, DFT!

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Why did you kill this? I was gonna promote it.

In reply to this comment by Raigen:
Lyrics:
"BIBLE IN A MINUTE"

EARTH MADE, ADAM EVE
CAIN KILLS ABEL, HAS TO LEAVE
BORING GENEALOGY
GREAT FLOOD, OLIVE LEAF

TOWER BABEL, ABRAHAM
SODOM AND GOMORRAH AND
ISAAC, JACOB, JOSEPH, MOSES
TEN COMMANDS, PROMISED LAND

JUDGES, DAVID, SOLOMON
SENT AWAY TO BABYLON
JOB, THEN A BUNCH OF PSALMS
PROVERBS AND THE SONG OF SONGS

MAJOR PROPHETS, LION DEN
MINOR PROPHETS, BETHLEHEM
GOLD AND MYRRH AND FRANKINCENSE
SATAN AND SAMARITAN

CHOOSE DISCIPLES, OTHER CHEEK
WALK ON WATER, THOUSANDS EAT
LAZARUS, FIG TREE
LAST SUPPER, GETHSEMANE

BLOOD MONEY, THIRD DENIAL
PONTIUS PILATE, PUBLIC TRIAL
FORTY LASHES, TO THE TREE
WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?

THIRD DAY, EMPTY TOMB
REAPPEARS, FIVE WOUNDS
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES NEXT
EPISTLES AND APOCALYPSE

Why did you kill this? I was gonna promote it.

In reply to this comment by Raigen:
Lyrics:
"BIBLE IN A MINUTE"

EARTH MADE, ADAM EVE
CAIN KILLS ABEL, HAS TO LEAVE
BORING GENEALOGY
GREAT FLOOD, OLIVE LEAF

TOWER BABEL, ABRAHAM
SODOM AND GOMORRAH AND
ISAAC, JACOB, JOSEPH, MOSES
TEN COMMANDS, PROMISED LAND

JUDGES, DAVID, SOLOMON
SENT AWAY TO BABYLON
JOB, THEN A BUNCH OF PSALMS
PROVERBS AND THE SONG OF SONGS

MAJOR PROPHETS, LION DEN
MINOR PROPHETS, BETHLEHEM
GOLD AND MYRRH AND FRANKINCENSE
SATAN AND SAMARITAN

CHOOSE DISCIPLES, OTHER CHEEK
WALK ON WATER, THOUSANDS EAT
LAZARUS, FIG TREE
LAST SUPPER, GETHSEMANE

BLOOD MONEY, THIRD DENIAL
PONTIUS PILATE, PUBLIC TRIAL
FORTY LASHES, TO THE TREE
WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?

THIRD DAY, EMPTY TOMB
REAPPEARS, FIVE WOUNDS
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES NEXT
EPISTLES AND APOCALYPSE

Lyrics:
"BIBLE IN A MINUTE"

EARTH MADE, ADAM EVE
CAIN KILLS ABEL, HAS TO LEAVE
BORING GENEALOGY
GREAT FLOOD, OLIVE LEAF

TOWER BABEL, ABRAHAM
SODOM AND GOMORRAH AND
ISAAC, JACOB, JOSEPH, MOSES
TEN COMMANDS, PROMISED LAND

JUDGES, DAVID, SOLOMON
SENT AWAY TO BABYLON
JOB, THEN A BUNCH OF PSALMS
PROVERBS AND THE SONG OF SONGS

MAJOR PROPHETS, LION DEN
MINOR PROPHETS, BETHLEHEM
GOLD AND MYRRH AND FRANKINCENSE
SATAN AND SAMARITAN

CHOOSE DISCIPLES, OTHER CHEEK
WALK ON WATER, THOUSANDS EAT
LAZARUS, FIG TREE
LAST SUPPER, GETHSEMANE

BLOOD MONEY, THIRD DENIAL
PONTIUS PILATE, PUBLIC TRIAL
FORTY LASHES, TO THE TREE
WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?

THIRD DAY, EMPTY TOMB
REAPPEARS, FIVE WOUNDS
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES NEXT
EPISTLES AND APOCALYPSE

Once there was a man who's father was God and was sent down to earth to confirm God's contract with man. He was born of a virgin through immaculate conception. Born in a stable on December 25th. Visited by wise men bearing gifts. He had 12 disciples and was called the Messiah. He died to wash away the sins of man, and held a last supper with his disciples before his death. But morn not for he was resurrected on a Sunday and ascended into heaven to join his father God. On judgment day he will return, the dead shall rise, and he shall judge them. Sinners will go to hell and the faithful to heaven. Also on this judgment day there will be a great battle between good and evil but the son of God will win. This messiah is part of a Holy Trinity: The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit. Followers of this messiah, who is adorned with glowing halo, drink wine and eat bread that represent his blood and flesh. And his name is Mithra. He was worshiped long before Christianity. The official explanation from the Catholic church is that Mithra was created by Satan himself in ancient times to confuse us all when Jesus showed up and did the exact same stuff.

Christianity is just a ripped off Mithra story with some plot hole filled, anti-Jewish parts thrown in.

Every Christian must remember that no matter how much you believe in your heart that Jesus existed and was the messiah, there's even more people on earth today that believe just as much in different gods. Notice how much your faith depends on what religion your parents and your country have? If there's one true God then why does it look so much like people believe whatever they were raised to believe?

The song is Grim's Last Supper I believe...