*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, November 28th, 2011 2:39am PST - promote requested by original submitter Grimm.

*nsfw

This video has been flagged as being Not Suitable For Work - declared nsfw by radx.

cool... penn has always had my respect - read a lot, educate yourself on the issue, reason it out for yourself, even if you're wrong... then engage in dialog with others and reassess your beliefs (if necessary) - rinse and repeat

i do think he's a bit mistaken about the advent of politicians protecting themselves with the blanket-term 'christian' - no, no... not that they don't - they do... i just think that such behavior began much, much earlier in the us, which kind of makes his point a bit weaker

here's what forms a large part of my dissent of penn's position:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_affiliations_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

anyway, thanks for the vid... and as an asside, i just noticed that when penn's getting really intense, a small buttocks appears between his eyebrows - lol

If anything that wiki page "confirms" what he was saying. Those are the religions that they were affiliated with...but they did not make it part of their campaign because all the different sects looked at each other the way they now look at the Mormons. That is...disn't matter if you believed in Christ (were a Christian) if you belonged to one of the other religions you and your group had it all wrong. What are the odds that a devote and outspoken "Quaker", "Theist" or "Unitarian" could get nominated these days?

>> ^Grimm:
If anything that wiki page "confirms" what he was saying. Those are the religions that they were affiliated with...but they did not make it part of their campaign because all the different sects looked at each other the way they now look at the Mormons. That is...disn't matter if you believed in Christ (were a Christian) if you belonged to one of the other religions you and your group had it all wrong. What are the odds that a devote and outspoken "Quaker", "Theist" or "Unitarian" could get nominated these days?


yes, exactly!

like i said previously, penn's right in saying this happened... but his assertion that it began ~40 years ago... that's where i think he misspoke

OK...so when do you think it began?>> ^Diogenes:

>> ^Grimm:
If anything that wiki page "confirms" what he was saying. Those are the religions that they were affiliated with...but they did not make it part of their campaign because all the different sects looked at each other the way they now look at the Mormons. That is...disn't matter if you believed in Christ (were a Christian) if you belonged to one of the other religions you and your group had it all wrong. What are the odds that a devote and outspoken "Quaker", "Theist" or "Unitarian" could get nominated these days?

yes, exactly!
like i said previously, penn's right in saying this happened... but his assertion that it began ~40 years ago... that's where i think he misspoke

well, as the link infers... probably right from the start

i just find it difficult to agree with penn in that the umbrella term 'christian' began to flourish in the 1970s, and because of some sort of 'planning'

i mean, we know simply from the etymology of the word that it was used long, long ago... at first disparagingly by non-christians, and then embraced a few hundred years later as different assemblies used it to self identify

i think those who run for office are canny by nature, and it's probably second nature for them to understand that to garner more votes, they must present an inclusive image, rather than divisive

This country was founded by Christians, and judeo-christian principles. 24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers. The first meeting of the constitutional congress opened with a 3 hour prayer and a bible study. The reason we have "checks and balances" is because the founders knew all men are sinners and can't be trusted with power. James Madison got the idea for our three branches of government from Isaiah 33:22. This idea that this country has ever been secular in any sense is ridiculous. While some presidents may have been pandering, we are a Christian nation, and that is why we elect Christian leaders. Around 80 percent of us self-identify as Christian, and around 90 percent profess a belief in a higher power. Only around 13 percent of the country believes in darwinian evolution without any divine intervention, which is the reason why we won't have any atheists in the office anytime soon.

Newsweek

Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document

12/27/82

>> ^Diogenes:

well, as the link infers... probably right from the start
i just find it difficult to agree with penn in that the umbrella term 'christian' began to flourish in the 1970s, and because of some sort of 'planning'
i mean, we know simply from the etymology of the word that it was used long, long ago... at first disparagingly by non-christians, and then embraced a few hundred years later as different assemblies used it to self identify
i think those who run for office are canny by nature, and it's probably second nature for them to understand that to garner more votes, they must present an inclusive image, rather than divisive

you, sir, are full of dumb>> ^shinyblurry:
This country was founded by Christians, and judeo-christian principles. 24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers. The first meeting of the constitutional congress opened with a 3 hour prayer and a bible study. The reason we have "checks and balances" is because the founders knew all men are sinners and can't be trusted with power. James Madison got the idea for our three branches of government from Isaiah 33:22. This idea that this country has ever been secular in any sense is ridiculous. While some presidents may have been pandering, we are a Christian nation, and that is why we elect Christian leaders. Around 80 percent of us self-identify as Christian, and around 90 percent profess a belief in a higher power. Only around 13 percent of the country believes in darwinian evolution without any divine intervention, which is the reason why we won't have any atheists in the office anytime soon.
Newsweek
Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document
12/27/82
>> ^Diogenes:
well, as the link infers... probably right from the start
i just find it difficult to agree with penn in that the umbrella term 'christian' began to flourish in the 1970s, and because of some sort of 'planning'
i mean, we know simply from the etymology of the word that it was used long, long ago... at first disparagingly by non-christians, and then embraced a few hundred years later as different assemblies used it to self identify
i think those who run for office are canny by nature, and it's probably second nature for them to understand that to garner more votes, they must present an inclusive image, rather than divisive

You, sir, don't know much about our history. btw, the word Christian appears in the bible

>> ^Diogenes:

you, sir, are full of dumb>> ^shinyblurry:
This country was founded by Christians, and judeo-christian principles. 24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers. The first meeting of the constitutional congress opened with a 3 hour prayer and a bible study. The reason we have "checks and balances" is because the founders knew all men are sinners and can't be trusted with power. James Madison got the idea for our three branches of government from Isaiah 33:22. This idea that this country has ever been secular in any sense is ridiculous. While some presidents may have been pandering, we are a Christian nation, and that is why we elect Christian leaders. Around 80 percent of us self-identify as Christian, and around 90 percent profess a belief in a higher power. Only around 13 percent of the country believes in darwinian evolution without any divine intervention, which is the reason why we won't have any atheists in the office anytime soon.
Newsweek
Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document
12/27/82
>> ^Diogenes:
well, as the link infers... probably right from the start
i just find it difficult to agree with penn in that the umbrella term 'christian' began to flourish in the 1970s, and because of some sort of 'planning'
i mean, we know simply from the etymology of the word that it was used long, long ago... at first disparagingly by non-christians, and then embraced a few hundred years later as different assemblies used it to self identify
i think those who run for office are canny by nature, and it's probably second nature for them to understand that to garner more votes, they must present an inclusive image, rather than divisive

I believe this is misleading...what proof is there of this claim?>> ^shinyblurry:

24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers.

i know less than some, and i know more than some... but i certainly won't be learning any history from your trollish spiels

the word 'christian' appears in the bible, huh? you mean it appears in an english translation of the bible, right? because none of the original manuscripts that came to form the new testament contained any english

the original texts were in greek, aramaic, and hebrew - we see khristos derived from the nominative greek, which was simply a direct translation from the hebrew meaning of messiah or annointed one - latin added the '-anos' suffix to create the adjective form

hey! did you know that the swahili word 'mafuriko' appears in the epic of gilgamesh? yes, it means 'flood'
>> ^shinyblurry:
You, sir, don't know much about our history. btw, the word Christian appears in the bible
>> ^Diogenes:
you, sir, are full of dumb

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html
http://ourfoundingtruth.blogspot.com/2007/10/founding-fathers-considered-clergy.html

>> ^Grimm:

I believe this is misleading...what proof is there of this claim?>> ^shinyblurry:
24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers.

Really!? You mean the apostles weren't born in America? Sigh..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ

"The word is used as a title, hence its common reciprocal use Christ Jesus, meaning "The Messiah Jesus". Followers of Jesus became known as Christians (as in Acts 11:26) because they believed Jesus to be the Christ, or Christos, or Christian Messiah, prophesied in the Old Testament - therefore they often call him Jesus Christ, meaning Jesus is the Christos."

If you don't believe that America is founded on judeo-christian beliefs then you don't know anything about American history. This isn't one of those subjects where you can look at the evidence and plausibly say it could go either way. It is totally beyond a shadow of a doubt.

For instance, did you know that the act which established the public school system in this country is called "The Old Deluder Satan Act"? The reason it was called that is because they wanted the public to be able to read and understand scripture so they wouldn't be deluded about the truth by Satan. Is it getting clear to you yet?

http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/deluder.html

"It being one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures, as in former times by keeping them in an unknown tongue, so in these latter times by persuading from the use of tongues, that so that at least the true sense and meaning of the original might be clouded and corrupted with false glosses of saint-seeming deceivers; and to the end that learning may not be buried in the grave of our forefathers, in church and commonwealth, the Lord assisting our endeavors."

>> ^Diogenes:

i know less than some, and i know more than some... but i certainly won't be learning any history from your trollish spiels
the word 'christian' appears in the bible, huh? you mean it appears in an english translation of the bible, right? because none of the original manuscripts that came to form the new testament contained any english
the original texts were in greek, aramaic, and hebrew - we see khristos derived from the nominative greek, which was simply a direct translation from the hebrew meaning of messiah or annointed one - latin added the '-anos' suffix to create the adjective form
hey! did you know that the swahili word 'mafuriko' appears in the epic of gilgamesh? yes, it means 'flood'
>> ^shinyblurry:
You, sir, don't know much about our history. btw, the word Christian appears in the bible
>> ^Diogenes:
you, sir, are full of dumb

>> ^shinyblurry:
If you don't believe that America is founded on judeo-christian beliefs then you don't know anything about American history.

There's little point in debating the way things used to be, when you should be debating how they ought to be.

First link has no mention regarding "24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers."

The second link points out that I was correct that the statement is misleading. You are counting anyone that graduated from Harvard, Yale, and Princeton as having a "seminary degree".
>> ^shinyblurry:

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html
http://ourfoundingtruth.blogspot.com/2007/10/founding-fath
ers-considered-clergy.html
>> ^Grimm:
I believe this is misleading...what proof is there of this claim?>> ^shinyblurry:
24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers.

Another misleading piece of information...the Old Deluder Satan Act was something the "colony" Massachusetts did in 1647. Over 100 years before we were a country and had a Constitution. No one is making the argument that some of the colony governments weren't "religious". It's a pretty big leap to point at the colonies who shifted educating the public from the church to the government as an example of how this country is founded on religion. Your case would be stronger if it were the other way around...that the government put the churches in charge of educating the public.>> ^shinyblurry:


For instance, did you know that the act which established the public school system in this country is called "The Old Deluder Satan Act"? The reason it was called that is because they wanted the public to be able to read and understand scripture so they wouldn't be deluded about the truth by Satan. Is it getting clear to you yet?
http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/deluder.html

I'm no mathematician, I'm only studying to be one...but 24 isn't even half of 56. Oh and also, thanks for your blinded view of the world...of course you only see this shit-hole country. As far as the rest of this planet, that sits at the tip of an arm in our spiraling galaxy in a vast sea of nothingness, your shit religion only preoccupies a third of its inhabitants. Your view of the world is so fucking skewed. How do you live through life spinning the truth into your twisted deluded bullshit factory you call a brain. For fuck's sake. You really think this entire fucking universe was created for YOUR dumbass? So that you can come and argue with people about some guy you've never fucking met that apparently did something you never fucking saw who was both the son and the same as some magical sky man? Are you a fucking adult? Are you a grown human being with actual ability to reason. What the fuck does it matter what some dummies thought 200 years ago? The majority of them were just as stupid as 80% of the US is now.

BTW, the tenacity of belief and the volume of those that believe in those beliefs NEVER qualifies as substantial evidence for its validity. >> ^shinyblurry:

This country was founded by Christians, and judeo-christian principles. 24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers. The first meeting of the constitutional congress opened with a 3 hour prayer and a bible study. The reason we have "checks and balances" is because the founders knew all men are sinners and can't be trusted with power. James Madison got the idea for our three branches of government from Isaiah 33:22. This idea that this country has ever been secular in any sense is ridiculous. While some presidents may have been pandering, we are a Christian nation, and that is why we elect Christian leaders. Around 80 percent of us self-identify as Christian, and around 90 percent profess a belief in a higher power. Only around 13 percent of the country believes in darwinian evolution without any divine intervention, which is the reason why we won't have any atheists in the office anytime soon.
Newsweek
Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document
12/27/82
>> ^Diogenes:
well, as the link infers... probably right from the start
i just find it difficult to agree with penn in that the umbrella term 'christian' began to flourish in the 1970s, and because of some sort of 'planning'
i mean, we know simply from the etymology of the word that it was used long, long ago... at first disparagingly by non-christians, and then embraced a few hundred years later as different assemblies used it to self identify
i think those who run for office are canny by nature, and it's probably second nature for them to understand that to garner more votes, they must present an inclusive image, rather than divisive

shit @shinyblurry

This is a big ball of yarn. Make sure to pace yourself.
You could bump the comment count up to 200 if you work your talking points right.

Just remember, keep your retorts short. ;]

Show mercy. If you condemn all of our souls to hell too quickly, there won't be anyone to argue with and judge as a sinner later in the thread.


Okay, here's one for you to practice on:

Hey Shiny, since Mormon's aren't TRUE christians and the holy book of mormon is lying about the one TRUE god, Yahweh..

How can I trust YOUR holy book isn't lying to me?

Do you use a Baptist holey book? An Episcopalian wholly book?

Remember - KIQ: keep it quick.
- Save the Big Damnation Guns for later responses
- Stay on topic but also vaguely out in left field. It helps draw out the weak points of our ignorant, sinful opinions

*quality *doublepromote

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, November 28th, 2011 11:26am PST - doublepromote requested by gwiz665.

Everything Penn says here is absolutely correct, but...

I Knew Ron Paul would be exempt from this treatment.

Young Earth Creationist Christian Ron Paul.

>> ^Diogenes:

you, sir, are full of dumbCan I get an "AMEN"?!?

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Okay, here's one for you to practice on:
Yer wasting your time with this nutter.

You mean the Kings James version of the Bible?

1st-century 27 Books of the New Testament (IN GREEK)
4th-century Translated to Latin Vulgate (IN LATIN)
1000 AD Translations of The New Testament (IN ANGLO-SAXON)
1455 AD Gutenberg printing press (IN LATIN)
1522 AD Martin Luther's German New Testament (IN GERMAN)
1526 AD William Tyndale's New Testament from Vulgate (IN ENGLISH)
1568 AD Bishops Bible Printed (IN ENGLISH)
1611 AD King James Bible Printed (IN ENGLISH) (80 books)
1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769 KJV revised
1885 AD "English Revised Version" Bible Revision of the KJV. (IN ENGLISH) (only 66 books)

They were just as often called Nazarenes.

Do you realize anyone called a follower of the Messiah would basically be considered a lunatic, since the Jews believed in the coming of the Messiah and it had a different meaning. It is basically like being a Raelian.

Can someone explain how if it is the magic word of God, can you just remove 1/4 of it? And just pretend we won't read these parts anymore after they were in there for almost two centuries? Some magic powers the God has, he can't even keep his Words from being censored.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You, sir, don't know much about our history. btw, the word Christian appears in the bible

to be crazy, doesn't mean you have to go around humping doorknobs, throwing poop at people...
some of the craziest people in life would have been considered normal (at most a little weird) if not for happenstance/luck

many sociopaths can function (some, extremely well even) in society... and in fact are quite adept at manipulating others

i'd love to be as optimistic as Penn, but I literally believe there are people who believe the end of the world will happen in our life time... i think some of these people are in positions of authority and power... and while I don't consider there to be a conspiracy to "bring the end of the world upon us"... I think their belief comes into their decision making process... and that might go a long way to explaining some of the VERY short sighted decisions being made today

of course I believe, the majority of these decisions are made because of inneptitude and corruption/greed

I just don't think its that easy to muddle through the mess of motivation to declare that this person is undeniably good when you wouldn't be able to justify declaring a person to be undeniably bad... both are extreme's... it's just more socially acceptable to do one more than the other

For the most part, I thought this was excellent.

I did wince a bit when he claimed if we break the population of the U.S. down by sects that atheists would be the biggest group. That's just declaring open season for people like Shiny to claim that atheism is a belief system. What would have been truer would be to say that people who declare no affiliation with any sect of an organized religion would be the largest group... and that group would be an incredibly diverse group of people that included anti-theists, agnostics, Wiccans, Christians who have left the church behind but still pray every day, etc.

About the "magic undergarments" bit, that's a little overplayed and kind of a cheap shot. Mormons that I've talked to treat the garments as purely symbolic (a symbol of their covenant with God) and a survey done a while back showed that most thought of it as simply "spiritual protection" (from temptation to sin).

More on the undergarments here: http://www.mormonstudies.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8:what-are-mormon-underwear-or-garments&catid=1:faq&Itemid=2

>> ^SDGundamX:

For the most part, I thought this was excellent.
I did wince a bit when he claimed if we break the population of the U.S. down by sects that atheists would be the biggest group. That's just declaring open season for people like Shiny to claim that atheism is a belief system. What would have been truer would be to say that people who declare no affiliation with any sect of an organized religion would be the largest group... and that group would be an incredibly diverse group of people that included anti-theists, agnostics, Wiccans, Christians who have left the church behind but still pray every day, etc.
About the "magic undergarments" bit, that's a little overplayed and kind of a cheap shot. Mormons that I've talked to treat the garments as purely symbolic (a symbol of their covenant with God) and a survey done a while back showed that most thought of it as simply "spiritual protection" (from temptation to sin).
More on the undergarments here: http://www.mormonstudies.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8:what-are-mormon-underwear-or-garments&catid=1:faq&
Itemid=2


I agree with you on every point.

I'm sure as an unbeliever you think it is purely coincidental that founding this country on Christian principles led to it being the greatest country in history within 200 years.

I'm sure that you also think that its a coincidence that since they started taking God out of our schools and public life in the 60's, violent crime has gone up 500 percent, murder rates have tripled, divorce rates have doubled, STD rates are up 200 percent, fatherless households increased from 6 to 40 percent, unwed birth rates of 10-14 year olds up 500 percent etc

This isn't how it ought to be, or how the founders intended. We have a society that accepts all of these diverse views because of the Christian principles of personal freedom and liberty. Atheists, using these great freedoms afforded to them by our judeo-christian heritage, want to use them to dismantle the very foundation of what gave them those freedoms in the first place. What in the world do you think is going to happen when you tamper with the foundation? It is all going to fall apart, as we see it happening today.

This country was founded on a covenant with God, and much like israel, when we reject our Creator, judgement isn't far behind. The secularization of this society is basically suicide.


>> ^rebuilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If you don't believe that America is founded on judeo-christian beliefs then you don't know anything about American history.
There's little point in debating the way things used to be, when you should be debating how they ought to be.

First link has no mention regarding "24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers."

The second link points out that I was correct that the statement is misleading. You are counting anyone that graduated from Harvard, Yale, and Princeton as having a "seminary degree".

You are aware that all of those schools were founded by the puritans, right? Before they became secular instituions in the mid 1800's, their mandate was to train ministers and missionaries to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. So yes, they were seminary degrees.

Another misleading piece of information...the Old Deluder Satan Act was something the "colony" Massachusetts did in 1647. Over 100 years before we were a country and had a Constitution. No one is making the argument that some of the colony governments weren't "religious". It's a pretty big leap to point at the colonies who shifted educating the public from the church to the government as an example of how this country is founded on religion. Your case would be stronger if it were the other way around...that the government put the churches in charge of educating the public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_School_Laws

The Massachusetts School Laws were three legislative acts of 1642, 1647 and 1648 enacted in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The most famous by far is the law of 1647, also known as the Old Deluder Satan Law (after the law's first sentence) and The General School Law of 1647. They are commonly regarded as the historical first step toward compulsory government-directed public education in the United States of America. Shortly after the three laws passed, similar laws were enacted in the other New England colonies.[1] Most mid-Atlantic colonies followed suit, though in some Southern colonies it was a further century before publicly funded schools were established there.[2]

>> ^Grimm:
Another misleading piece of information...the Old Deluder Satan Act was something the "colony" Massachusetts did in 1647. Over 100 years before we were a country and had a Constitution. No one is making the argument that some of the colony governments weren't "religious". It's a pretty big leap to point at the colonies who shifted educating the public from the church to the government as an example of how this country is founded on religion. Your case would be stronger if it were the other way around...that the government put the churches in charge of educating the public.>> ^shinyblurry:
For instance, did you know that the act which established the public school system in this country is called "The Old Deluder Satan Act"? The reason it was called that is because they wanted the public to be able to read and understand scripture so they wouldn't be deluded about the truth by Satan. Is it getting clear to you yet?
http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/deluder.html

I'm no mathematician, I'm only studying to be one...but 24 isn't even half of 56.

No, it is about 43 percent, which still reflects the religious convinction of the signers. I believe all them except three were acknowledged to be practicing Christians.

Oh and also, thanks for your blinded view of the world...of course you only see this shit-hole country.

Ahh, another far-leftie who hates America..what a surprise. How about we parachute you into North Korea and see how you do there?

As far as the rest of this planet, that sits at the tip of an arm in our spiraling galaxy in a vast sea of nothingness,

Red shift quantization indicates that the Milky Way is at the center of the Universe.



your shit religion only preoccupies a third of its inhabitants.

And also built western civilization. Maybe you could take some time off from burning American flags and educate yourself:

http://www.amazon.com/Book-that-Made-Your-World/dp/1595553223

Your view of the world is so fucking skewed. How do you live through life spinning the truth into your twisted deluded bullshit factory you call a brain. For fuck's sake. You really think this entire fucking universe was created for YOUR dumbass?

How can you be so oblivious that you actually believe Universes just happen by themselves? How is it that you failed to notice the design inherent in every little thing? Why do you love sin and hate the truth?

So that you can come and argue with people about some guy you've never fucking met that apparently did something you never fucking saw who was both the son and the same as some magical sky man?

I experience the presence of God in my life at all times, which is due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That alone confirms every word Jesus said is true. Jesus and the Father are separate people, but one God..have you ever read the bible? Perhaps if you educated yourself instead of mindlessly repeating stupid atheist memes and arguing from your own ignorance as to what is in it, we could have an intelligent discussion about it.

Are you a fucking adult? Are you a grown human being with actual ability to reason. What the fuck does it matter what some dummies thought 200 years ago? The majority of them were just as stupid as 80% of the US is now.

Do you not see the mania of your antitheism? Now you decry the founders because of their belief in God as being stupid and worthless, even though they were men of valor and obvious intellect who were willing to sacrifice their lives for the principles of freedom, and personal liberty. Obviously their deeply held faith in God was a positive contribution to their character and drive, and the founding principles of this nation, yet, you dismiss them all as morons, even as you enjoy the freedoms they made possible. Talk about twisted. They gave it all to God, and what we have today is through Gods blessing. As Frank Turek says, you have to sit in Gods lap to slap His face.

BTW, the tenacity of belief and the volume of those that believe in those beliefs NEVER qualifies as substantial evidence for its validity.

Neither does scoffing and mocking substitute for reason or substance.


>> ^rottenseed:
I'm no mathematician, I'm only studying to be one...but 24 isn't even half of 56. Oh and also, thanks for your blinded view of the world...of course you only see this shit-hole country. As far as the rest of this planet, that sits at the tip of an arm in our spiraling galaxy in a vast sea of nothingness, your shit religion only preoccupies a third of its inhabitants. Your view of the world is so fucking skewed. How do you live through life spinning the truth into your twisted deluded bullshit factory you call a brain. For fuck's sake. You really think this entire fucking universe was created for YOUR dumbass? So that you can come and argue with people about some guy you've never fucking met that apparently did something you never fucking saw who was both the son and the same as some magical sky man? Are you a fucking adult? Are you a grown human being with actual ability to reason. What the fuck does it matter what some dummies thought 200 years ago? The majority of them were just as stupid as 80% of the US is now.
BTW, the tenacity of belief and the volume of those that believe in those beliefs NEVER qualifies as substantial evidence for its validity. >> ^shinyblurry:
This country was founded by Christians, and judeo-christian principles. 24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers. The first meeting of the constitutional congress opened with a 3 hour prayer and a bible study. The reason we have "checks and balances" is because the founders knew all men are sinners and can't be trusted with power. James Madison got the idea for our three branches of government from Isaiah 33:22. This idea that this country has ever been secular in any sense is ridiculous. While some presidents may have been pandering, we are a Christian nation, and that is why we elect Christian leaders. Around 80 percent of us self-identify as Christian, and around 90 percent profess a belief in a higher power. Only around 13 percent of the country believes in darwinian evolution without any divine intervention, which is the reason why we won't have any atheists in the office anytime soon.
Newsweek
Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document
12/27/82
>> ^Diogenes:
well, as the link infers... probably right from the start
i just find it difficult to agree with penn in that the umbrella term 'christian' began to flourish in the 1970s, and because of some sort of 'planning'
i mean, we know simply from the etymology of the word that it was used long, long ago... at first disparagingly by non-christians, and then embraced a few hundred years later as different assemblies used it to self identify
i think those who run for office are canny by nature, and it's probably second nature for them to understand that to garner more votes, they must present an inclusive image, rather than divisive

How can I trust YOUR holy book isn't lying to me?

Do you use a Baptist holey book? An Episcopalian wholly book?

Christians use the bible, which is the Old Testament and the New Testament in one volume. Mormons have added another book to that, which is the reason why it is a cult and not Christianity. You can test the claims of Christianity by placing your faith in Jesus Christ, and asking Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
shit @shinyblurry
This is a big ball of yarn. Make sure to pace yourself.
You could bump the comment count up to 200 if you work your talking points right.
Just remember, keep your retorts short. ;]
Show mercy. If you condemn all of our souls to hell too quickly, there won't be anyone to argue with and judge as a sinner later in the thread.
Okay, here's one for you to practice on:
Hey Shiny, since Mormon's aren't TRUE christians and the holy book of mormon is lying about the one TRUE god, Yahweh..
How can I trust YOUR holy book isn't lying to me?
Do you use a Baptist holey book? An Episcopalian wholly book?
Remember - KIQ: keep it quick.
- Save the Big Damnation Guns for later responses
- Stay on topic but also vaguely out in left field. It helps draw out the weak points of our ignorant, sinful opinions

They were just as often called Nazarenes.

The point is that, contrary to what the video suggests, the word Christian comes from the 1st century, and has historically been the word followers of Jesus Christ use to refer to themselves. A christian is simply someone who accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior:

christian - Χριστιανός (Christianós)

Do you realize anyone called a follower of the Messiah would basically be considered a lunatic, since the Jews believed in the coming of the Messiah and it had a different meaning. It is basically like being a Raelian.

The Jews rejected Jesus because they were looking for a war Messiah who would install them as rulers of the world. Jesus came as the suffering Messiah who would die for the sins of the world as predicted in Isaiah:

53:4-6

4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

As noted in the OT, the jews were constantly under punishment because they ignored the direct commands of God, and constantly persecuted and murdered the prophets God sent to them. In this case, it was no different.

Can someone explain how if it is the magic word of God, can you just remove 1/4 of it? And just pretend we won't read these parts anymore after they were in there for almost two centuries? Some magic powers the God has, he can't even keep his Words from being censored.

Show me what you're referring to, specifically.


>> ^joedirt:
You mean the Kings James version of the Bible?
1st-century 27 Books of the New Testament (IN GREEK)
4th-century Translated to Latin Vulgate (IN LATIN)
1000 AD Translations of The New Testament (IN ANGLO-SAXON)
1455 AD Gutenberg printing press (IN LATIN)
1522 AD Martin Luther's German New Testament (IN GERMAN)
1526 AD William Tyndale's New Testament from Vulgate (IN ENGLISH)
1568 AD Bishops Bible Printed (IN ENGLISH)
1611 AD King James Bible Printed (IN ENGLISH) (80 books)
1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769 KJV revised
1885 AD "English Revised Version" Bible Revision of the KJV. (IN ENGLISH) (only 66 books)
They were just as often called Nazarenes.
Do you realize anyone called a follower of the Messiah would basically be considered a lunatic, since the Jews believed in the coming of the Messiah and it had a different meaning. It is basically like being a Raelian.
Can someone explain how if it is the magic word of God, can you just remove 1/4 of it? And just pretend we won't read these parts anymore after they were in there for almost two centuries? Some magic powers the God has, he can't even keep his Words from being censored.
>> ^shinyblurry:
You, sir, don't know much about our history. btw, the word Christian appears in the bible

*elections

>> ^shinyblurry:

For instance, did you know that the act which established the public school system in this country is called "The Old Deluder Satan Act"?

Did you know the Massachusetts General School Law of 1647 (aka The Old Deluder Satan Law) was passed in 1647, almost 130 years before the Declaration of Independence and over 140 years before the ratification of the Constitution?

There was no "this country" back then. It was merely a British colony.

edit: Never mind, I see @Grimm has already said this. Should have scrolled down further before responding.

Adding video to channels (Election) - requested by xxovercastxx.

As to the video itself, I think Penn may have poorly stated the part about the unification of Christians, but he's still on to something. The different sects used to be less cooperative than they are now. Just look at the mistrust of JFK during his election. Now, clearly it wasn't too strong or he'd have lost, but you don't see that sort of thing as much now. It's still there; just look at the statements about Mormons by other Christians during the last and current election cycles; but most of the churches stand more or less together now.

The thing I really disagree with in this video is the Hitchens quote; the part about this being the death throes of religion. If anything, I see a power surge in religion since 9/11. Yes, the critics are louder now than ever and they are growing in "power", if you will, but I think religion is growing in power just as much. The balance is not shifting, we just have lots of previously neutral people picking sides.

If anything, I feel we're well on our way to a new Crusade with a not-insignificant portion of US Christians calling for the extermination of Muslims and a small but not-insignificant portion of Muslims calling for the extermination of Americans.

Depending on how things pan out, I would not rule out a major religious war in the next 50-100 years. Depending on how that goes, it could destroy or embolden religion in the US. If it's a long, hard-fought war, I could see people becoming disillusioned. If, as I suspect, the United States of Christianity simply blot out the "heathen uprisings", then I could see this being taken as an affirmation of the faith.

You should scrolled further to my response..the act established the first public schools, and was the historical first step towards a national public school system. Benjamin Franklin in 1749 said the teaching of history in schools should “afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion … and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others". Public education was originally developed as a tool to teach people scripture, and so were the ivy league schools like Harvard and Yale..


>> ^xxovercastxx:
elections
>> ^shinyblurry:
For instance, did you know that the act which established the public school system in this country is called "The Old Deluder Satan Act"?
Did you know the Massachusetts General School Law of 1647 (aka The Old Deluder Satan Law) was passed in 1647, almost 130 years before the Declaration of Independence and over 140 years before the ratification of the Constitution?
There was no "this country" back then. It was merely a British colony.
edit: Never mind, I see @Grimm has already said this. Should have scrolled down further before responding.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You should scrolled further to my response..the act established the first public schools, and was the historical first step towards a national public school system. Benjamin Franklin in 1749 said the teaching of history in schools should “afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion … and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others". Public education was originally developed as a tool to teach people scripture, and so were the ivy league schools like Harvard and Yale..

>> ^xxovercastxx:
elections
>> ^shinyblurry:
For instance, did you know that the act which established the public school system in this country is called "The Old Deluder Satan Act"?
Did you know the Massachusetts General School Law of 1647 (aka The Old Deluder Satan Law) was passed in 1647, almost 130 years before the Declaration of Independence and over 140 years before the ratification of the Constitution?
There was no "this country" back then. It was merely a British colony.
edit: Never mind, I see @Grimm has already said this. Should have scrolled down further before responding.



I did, that's why I said never mind.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You can test the claims of Christianity by placing your faith in Jesus Christ, and asking Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior.

And when he doesn't show, then what do we do?

Revelation 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

If He showed up, would you give your life over to Him? I don't know if God is answering half-hearted prayers..

You might also try to find out more about it.. http://www.needhim.org/ ..there is a good penn jillette video there

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You can test the claims of Christianity by placing your faith in Jesus Christ, and asking Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior.
And when he doesn't show, then what do we do?

Wow are you the dumbest person spouting religious crap I've seen on this website. from 100 AD until 1885 the Christians all had version of a Bible with 80 books in it!! You are an ignorant person running around telling people what a Christian is and then you say the Bible is just the OT & NT.

If you consider Mormons a cult because they added a book, then guess what, you are also a follower of a cult by removing 14 books of the word of the Lord.

So clueless. Would it blow your mind to know that Islam and Mormonism all have the same Jesus in their sacred books? They both believe in the same Jesus, so by your definition that makes them Christians also.


>> ^shinyblurry:

How can I trust YOUR holy book isn't lying to me?
Do you use a Baptist holey book? An Episcopalian wholly book?
Christians use the bible, which is the Old Testament and the New Testament in one volume. Mormons have added another book to that, which is the reason why it is a cult and not Christianity.




Regarding the founding fathers, you could also say they were white, therefore this should be a country for white people. Most founders of this country thought religion was an abomination when it comes to matters of the state, and they feared ignorant people running around trying to declare nonsense like it should be a nation of Chirstians.

>>>Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. -- James Madison (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

No they didn't. Almost everything you have said here is wrong. For instance, the earliest version of the New Testament that could be considered "canonized" consisted of ten of pauls epistles and a version of the gospel of Luke. It was only around 200 AD that the 27 books of the NT were decided to be the likely candidates for being wholly inspired works, which became agreed upon by the whole church by the middle of the 3rd century. There were 3 other books which were included in 397 as reading material, but they were not thought to be inspired. The catholic church included 11 more books in the 1500s, but no one else considered them inspired, including the jewish people who wrote them. They were finally taken out of bibles around the end of the 1800s, as you said.

These uninspired works were known as the apocrypha, and none of them ever belonged there in the first place. The fact is, the bible today matches what the early church had decided upon as inspired as early as 200 AD. Which brings us to the mormons, who claim that they have a special revelation from Jesus Christ, that He came and visted America and the indians, etc. The problem is, not excepting that there is no evidence for the claims it makes, or any precedent or prophecy that predicts it, that the claims of the book of mormon fundementally alters the truth of the gospels. It preaches a much different Jesus, as does Islam. Paul said this:

Galatians 1:8

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Both the mormons and the muslims received their revelations from angels. Scripture also says this:

2 Corinthians 11:14

And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

Scripture rejects it, and that is why they are considered a cult and not Christian.


>> ^joedirt:
Wow are you the dumbest person spouting religious crap I've seen on this website.
from 100 AD until 1885 the Christians all had version of a Bible with 80 books in it. You are an ignorant person running around telling people what a Christian is and then you say the Bible is just the OT & NT. So clueless. Would it blow your mind to know that Islam and Mormonism all have the same Jesus in their sacred books? They both believe in the same Jesus, so by your definition that makes them Christians also.
If you consider Mormons a cult because they added a book, then guess what, you are also a follower of a cult by removing 14 books of the word of the Lord.
>> ^shinyblurry:
How can I trust YOUR holy book isn't lying to me?
Do you use a Baptist holey book? An Episcopalian wholly book?
Christians use the bible, which is the Old Testament and the New Testament in one volume. Mormons have added another book to that, which is the reason why it is a cult and not Christianity.

Regarding the founding fathers, you could also say they were white, therefore this should be a country for white people. Most founders of this country though religion was an abomination when it comes to matters of the state, and they feared ignorant people running around trying to declare nonsense like it should eb a nation of Chirstians.
>>>Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. -- James Madison (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

>> ^shinyblurry:

If He showed up, would you give your life over to Him? I don't know if God is answering half-hearted prayers..
You might also try to find out more about it.. http://www.needhim.org/ ..there is a good penn jillette video there

At that time of my life I already had. It was the persistent lack of response that first got me to doubt it all. If there is a God, he's got a hell of a way of treating children.

I read most of that site, at least I think I did. It's easy to get lost in the layout. I also watched several of the videos. I think you, and proselytizers in general, have this impression that non-believers are such only because they've never heard the story before. I've heard all of this hundreds and hundreds of times. I was raised with it. I heard it in Sunday school and at mass. I hear it at funerals. People knock on my door at 7am to tell me. Even the people who adopted my cat when I had to give him up took 20 minutes to tell me about Jesus.

I get that they (and presumably, you) think you are doing a good thing, but saying the same thing over and over does not make progress. I cannot take things, especially such fantastic things, on such weak evidence. No matter how many people believe, it's not proof. No number of anecdotes will convince me that a man was resurrected and, even if he was, it would still not prove there was a God. It would only be something without a definite explanation.

As for the Penn Jillette video you mention at needhim.org, you're right, it's a nice story. I think you could learn something from the man that story is about. It's highly unlikely that you will ever convert anyone here but at the very least you'd be less despised if you weren't so angry and obnoxious all the time. You get more flies with honey than shit.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.
If He showed up, would you give your life over to Him? I don't know if God is answering half-hearted prayers..
You might also try to find out more about it.. http://www.needhim.org/ ..there is a good penn jillette video there
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You can test the claims of Christianity by placing your faith in Jesus Christ, and asking Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior.
And when he doesn't show, then what do we do?



So, in order to be convinced, the first thing you need to do is believe?

Not good enough. My life is perfectly fine without jesus, or any other mythical figures*. My life may not be perfect, but none of the problems I have would be improved with the addition of a set of nonsensical rules and mindless sycophancy. So if jesus loves me, and wants me to believe in him, he's gonna have to meet me halfway here. I will admit he's my lord and saviour, yadda yadda yadda the second he gives me one shred of evidence he exists. And no bullshit voices, either. I want hard empirical evidence. C'mon, he's "the son of god". Surely that can't be beyond him?

* aside from Batman. Batman is waaaay more awesome than jesus.

@shinyblurry Boy, I would LOVE to see you take high level Physics classes.

I'll be in the observation booth with the false glass that overlooks the lecture hall while watching your reaction as the professor is ripping you a new three-variable integrated volumetric "learning" space, for studious future note taking.

/Stay away from the Cosmology and Physics stuff, trust me. You look horrible. Most of the ideas are easily debatable by High School level Physics knowledge--I'm not kidding either.

You are a dolt. Red shift is a term referring to the Doppler effect. The Doppler effect is relative to an object and its observer. Of course to us the redshift shows us at the middle, we're the ones observing it. Furthermore I love when christians use science sometimes, but then try to denounce it other times. Fucking dummies.

How can you be so oblivious that you actually believe Universes just happen by themselves? How is it that you failed to notice the design inherent in every little thing? Why do you love sin and hate the truth?

Ok, so you don't understand things...let's just throw a magician in the mix and all is answers. "Magnets, how the fuck do they work?" Must be magic, right? Oh no, we have an answer for that. And you're probably satisfied with that answer as it's commonplace and it doesn't contradict your belief in god.

I experience the presence of God in my life at all times, which is due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That alone confirms every word Jesus said is true. Jesus and the Father are separate people, but one God..have you ever read the bible? Perhaps if you educated yourself instead of mindlessly repeating stupid atheist memes and arguing from your own ignorance as to what is in it, we could have an intelligent discussion about it.

As if you're not repeating shitty christian rhetoric. BTW, I've tried to read the bible...discovered I have a better time reading something good. That's right, your book fucking sucks. That's the biggest shame: it's not even fucking entertaining. I can't get passed genesis without getting angry that people literally believe that bullshit. Maybe you're right though, maybe I should waste my time on that crappy book. I mean I need something fictional in between all the technical stuff I'm reading.

Do you not see the mania of your antitheism? Now you decry the founders because of their belief in God as being stupid and worthless, even though they were men of valor and obvious intellect who were willing to sacrifice their lives for the principles of freedom, and personal liberty. Obviously their deeply held faith in God was a positive contribution to their character and drive, and the founding principles of this nation, yet, you dismiss them all as morons, even as you enjoy the freedoms they made possible. Talk about twisted. They gave it all to God, and what we have today is through Gods blessing. As Frank Turek says, you have to sit in Gods lap to slap His face.

Ok, the whole founding fathers being Christian, deal. You've probably read plenty of places that they were christian and I've probably read plenty places that they weren't. It probably has to do with where we're searching, and I'm positive that there's plenty of evidence on both cases (there's not, but I'm being nice). But guess what...I wasn't there. Neither were you. And I know it's easy for you to make up your mind about something based on little to no evidence. I do know that there is NOT.ONE.MENTION.OF.GOD in the constitution. So you're a christian, tell me, would you put the word of god in a constitution if you were writing one? probably would.

Here's the deal with your "truth", shiny...your "truth" comes from an ancient text written thousands of years ago by man. Your entire "truth" is founded on the premise that the book is the word of a god. If one thing in that book is flawed, it compromises the entire premise. So you see, if you're intelligent enough, you should know that understanding science that has explained the world as different than the bible creates a conflict of interest for you. On the other hand, science is the act of testing a premise through the collection of data to form a conclusion. Science is wrong constantly, but every consecutive time it's wrong, it's more right than the time before. It doesn't base itself on the premise that it HAS to be right.




>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm no mathematician, I'm only studying to be one...but 24 isn't even half of 56.
No, it is about 43 percent, which still reflects the religious convinction of the signers. I believe all them except three were acknowledged to be practicing Christians.
Oh and also, thanks for your blinded view of the world...of course you only see this shit-hole country.
Ahh, another far-leftie who hates America..what a surprise. How about we parachute you into North Korea and see how you do there?
As far as the rest of this planet, that sits at the tip of an arm in our spiraling galaxy in a vast sea of nothingness,
Red shift quantization indicates that the Milky Way is at the center of the Universe.

your shit religion only preoccupies a third of its inhabitants.
And also built western civilization. Maybe you could take some time off from burning American flags and educate yourself:
http://www.amazon.com/Book-that-Made-Your-World/dp/1595553223
Your view of the world is so fucking skewed. How do you live through life spinning the truth into your twisted deluded bullshit factory you call a brain. For fuck's sake. You really think this entire fucking universe was created for YOUR dumbass?
How can you be so oblivious that you actually believe Universes just happen by themselves? How is it that you failed to notice the design inherent in every little thing? Why do you love sin and hate the truth?
So that you can come and argue with people about some guy you've never fucking met that apparently did something you never fucking saw who was both the son and the same as some magical sky man?
I experience the presence of God in my life at all times, which is due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That alone confirms every word Jesus said is true. Jesus and the Father are separate people, but one God..have you ever read the bible? Perhaps if you educated yourself instead of mindlessly repeating stupid atheist memes and arguing from your own ignorance as to what is in it, we could have an intelligent discussion about it.
Are you a fucking adult? Are you a grown human being with actual ability to reason. What the fuck does it matter what some dummies thought 200 years ago? The majority of them were just as stupid as 80% of the US is now.
Do you not see the mania of your antitheism? Now you decry the founders because of their belief in God as being stupid and worthless, even though they were men of valor and obvious intellect who were willing to sacrifice their lives for the principles of freedom, and personal liberty. Obviously their deeply held faith in God was a positive contribution to their character and drive, and the founding principles of this nation, yet, you dismiss them all as morons, even as you enjoy the freedoms they made possible. Talk about twisted. They gave it all to God, and what we have today is through Gods blessing. As Frank Turek says, you have to sit in Gods lap to slap His face.
BTW, the tenacity of belief and the volume of those that believe in those beliefs NEVER qualifies as substantial evidence for its validity.
Neither does scoffing and mocking substitute for reason or substance.

>> ^rottenseed:
I'm no mathematician, I'm only studying to be one...but 24 isn't even half of 56. Oh and also, thanks for your blinded view of the world...of course you only see this shit-hole country. As far as the rest of this planet, that sits at the tip of an arm in our spiraling galaxy in a vast sea of nothingness, your shit religion only preoccupies a third of its inhabitants. Your view of the world is so fucking skewed. How do you live through life spinning the truth into your twisted deluded bullshit factory you call a brain. For fuck's sake. You really think this entire fucking universe was created for YOUR dumbass? So that you can come and argue with people about some guy you've never fucking met that apparently did something you never fucking saw who was both the son and the same as some magical sky man? Are you a fucking adult? Are you a grown human being with actual ability to reason. What the fuck does it matter what some dummies thought 200 years ago? The majority of them were just as stupid as 80% of the US is now.
BTW, the tenacity of belief and the volume of those that believe in those beliefs NEVER qualifies as substantial evidence for its validity. >> ^shinyblurry:
This country was founded by Christians, and judeo-christian principles. 24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers. The first meeting of the constitutional congress opened with a 3 hour prayer and a bible study. The reason we have "checks and balances" is because the founders knew all men are sinners and can't be trusted with power. James Madison got the idea for our three branches of government from Isaiah 33:22. This idea that this country has ever been secular in any sense is ridiculous. While some presidents may have been pandering, we are a Christian nation, and that is why we elect Christian leaders. Around 80 percent of us self-identify as Christian, and around 90 percent profess a belief in a higher power. Only around 13 percent of the country believes in darwinian evolution without any divine intervention, which is the reason why we won't have any atheists in the office anytime soon.
Newsweek
Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document
12/27/82
>> ^Diogenes:
well, as the link infers... probably right from the start
i just find it difficult to agree with penn in that the umbrella term 'christian' began to flourish in the 1970s, and because of some sort of 'planning'
i mean, we know simply from the etymology of the word that it was used long, long ago... at first disparagingly by non-christians, and then embraced a few hundred years later as different assemblies used it to self identify
i think those who run for office are canny by nature, and it's probably second nature for them to understand that to garner more votes, they must present an inclusive image, rather than divisive

Religious texts are like the US Tax Code, plenty of contradictions, useless passages and passages made useless or contradictory by the passage of time. Yet few if any people are totally against the concept of taxation and the spirit of taxation (especially liberals). It's also a matter of faith that the tax code is truly fair and what it says can be interpreted in only one way, so the history and usefulness of a text can be entirely different from its original intent and still work.

Given all that, for atheists (even Penn) to nitpick the religious beliefs of politicians is silly. Politicians who take their faith seriously are less likely to wake up believing they are God and the State their means of ruling absolutely.

The better part of all religions affirms the sanctity of life. Atheism simply cannot match this.

DO YOU JACKASS' REALLY HAVE TO QUOTE THE ENTIRE TEXT ? FUCK OFF

>> ^BoneRemake:

DO YOU JACKASS' REALLY HAVE TO QUOTE THE ENTIRE TEXT ? FUCK OFF


this

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

That's adorable! >> ^shinyblurry:

Red shift quantization indicates that the Milky Way is at the center of the Universe.

At that time of my life I already had. It was the persistent lack of response that first got me to doubt it all. If there is a God, he's got a hell of a way of treating children.

I hear this all the time from people who walk away from God. Usually, it is one of three things..either some tragedy happens which throws their faith into doubt, or, it is because God didn't grant them what they wanted or didn't provide them signs to prove He exists.

Now, if one does read the word of God and follow it, it is fairly clear that there is no promise of a pain free life, one that is free from loss. In fact, it states precisely the opposite, that trials and persecutions will come, that we should expect them, and that they are to our benefit:

1 Peter

4:12 Beloved, don't be astonished at the fiery trial which has come upon you,
to test you, as though a strange thing happened to you.
4:13 But because you are partakers of Christ's sufferings, rejoice;
that at the revelation of his glory also you may rejoice with exceeding joy.

Romans 5:3-5

Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.

This is what Jesus said about signs:

Matthew 16:4

An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed.

If you had faith in Jesus, and that what He said is truth, you wouldn't fail to notice the hand of God in your life. It is still there, though you do not see it. The reason you do not see it is because you refuse to budge:

Hebrews 11:6

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

and again:

James 4:8

Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.

You want God to demonstrate His love, which He is always doing for you (which is plainly obvious each and every day if you could only see it), but what He wants is for you to demonstrate yours.

And as far as prayers go, He doesn't answer all prayers. Did He answer this prayer?:

Luke 22:42

"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."

Do you notice how Jesus prays? "yet not my will, but yours be done"? We don't know what we need, and much of what we ask for are things that are contrary to the Fathers will and planning. If there was ever a prayer He would have wanted to grant, it would be this one, yet if He had, then all would be dead in their sins. His plan was better, and Jesus allowed for it, as we should if we don't receive what we wanted.

The end truth is this:

John 14:21 Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

To abide is His love is to submit to His Lordship. Notice the last part...

I read most of that site, at least I think I did. It's easy to get lost in the layout. I also watched several of the videos. I think you, and proselytizers in general, have this impression that non-believers are such only because they've never heard the story before. I've heard all of this hundreds and hundreds of times. I was raised with it. I heard it in Sunday school and at mass. I hear it at funerals. People knock on my door at 7am to tell me. Even the people who adopted my cat when I had to give him up took 20 minutes to tell me about Jesus.

You can read something a hundred times and never understand it..and I don't think you do from what you have shared with me thus far. It's good that you remain open-minded; I appreciate that about you.

I get that they (and presumably, you) think you are doing a good thing, but saying the same thing over and over does not make progress. I cannot take things, especially such fantastic things, on such weak evidence. No matter how many people believe, it's not proof. No number of anecdotes will convince me that a man was resurrected and, even if he was, it would still not prove there was a God. It would only be something without a definite explanation.

I'm doing what the Lord told me to do, and because I care, and in the end all I will be able to say is that I am an unworthy servant who (hopefully) did his duty.


The resurrection is proof that every word He said is true, as it is when you receive the Holy Spirit. When I first met you, I perceived a spirit about you, and I imagined that perhaps you were some kind of pagan. When I found out you were agnostic it occured to me that perhaps you were an ex-Christian. Now, that I know I can see that you do have the Holy Spirit with you, but that the light has been dimmed to almost nothing. So, the sad irony is that God already gave you your proof but you are completely oblivious to it.

As for the Penn Jillette video you mention at needhim.org, you're right, it's a nice story. I think you could learn something from the man that story is about. It's highly unlikely that you will ever convert anyone here but at the very least you'd be less despised if you weren't so angry and obnoxious all the time. You get more flies with honey than shit.

I cannot convert anyone, that is the work of the Holy Spirit. And I have been despised since the moment I came here and opened my mouth. Yes, I have said stupid things more than a few times, but I am only human. This has more to do with prejudice than anything else, and some people have recognized that and spoken out about it.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If He showed up, would you give your life over to Him? I don't know if God is answering half-hearted prayers..
.

You have a lot more problems than you know about, but you said it yourself, youre satisified with a worldly life. You're not interested in God, you don't fear Him, and you don't want to live a holy and sanctified life. Instead of changing or reaching out to God, you want Jesus on a silver platter, to pursue at your leisure. So, it isn't really a mystery why you haven't heard anything from Him is it?

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.
If He showed up, would you give your life over to Him? I don't know if God is answering half-hearted prayers..
You might also try to find out more about it.. http://www.needhim.org/ ..there is a good penn jillette video there
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You can test the claims of Christianity by placing your faith in Jesus Christ, and asking Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior.
And when he doesn't show, then what do we do?


So, in order to be convinced, the first thing you need to do is believe?
Not good enough. My life is perfectly fine without jesus, or any other mythical figures . My life may not be perfect, but none of the problems I have would be improved with the addition of a set of nonsensical rules and mindless sycophancy. So if jesus loves me, and wants me to believe in him, he's gonna have to meet me halfway here. I will admit he's my lord and saviour, yadda yadda yadda the second he gives me one shred of evidence he exists. And no bullshit voices, either. I want hard empirical evidence. C'mon, he's "the son of god". Surely that can't be beyond him?
aside from Batman. Batman is waaaay more awesome than jesus.

You are a dolt. Red shift is a term referring to the Doppler effect. The Doppler effect is relative to an object and its observer. Of course to us the redshift shows us at the middle, we're the ones observing it. Furthermore I love when christians use science sometimes, but then try to denounce it other times. Fucking dummies.

The observation of red shifts having quantitized values is exactly the observation that their values are not due to a doppler effect. If you're going to call me stupid, at least know what you are talking about first. For your edification:

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Setter.pdf

And no, I am not against science. I am against exactly what isn't science, which macroevolution, which can neither be tested or observed, but is accepted on blind faith. The whole proposition is a false dichotomy:



Ok, so you don't understand things...let's just throw a magician in the mix and all is answers. "Magnets, how the fuck do they work?" Must be magic, right? Oh no, we have an answer for that. And you're probably satisfied with that answer as it's commonplace and it doesn't contradict your belief in god.

There aren't any answers for it. What you believe is that one day science is going to explain out how something came from nothing. That's much worse than magic, and your blind faith.

As if you're not repeating shitty christian rhetoric. BTW, I've tried to read the bible...discovered I have a better time reading something good. That's right, your book fucking sucks. That's the biggest shame: it's not even fucking entertaining. I can't get passed genesis without getting angry that people literally believe that bullshit. Maybe you're right though, maybe I should waste my time on that crappy book. I mean I need something fictional in between all the technical stuff I'm reading.



Ok, the whole founding fathers being Christian, deal. You've probably read plenty of places that they were christian and I've probably read plenty places that they weren't. It probably has to do with where we're searching, and I'm positive that there's plenty of evidence on both cases (there's not, but I'm being nice). But guess what...I wasn't there. Neither were you. And I know it's easy for you to make up your mind about something based on little to no evidence. I do know that there is NOT.ONE.MENTION.OF.GOD in the constitution. So you're a christian, tell me, would you put the word of god in a constitution if you were writing one? probably would.

It does make mention of God, and Christianity, actually. First, if you pursue the delegate discussions pertaining to the wording of the first ammendment, you will find that it was put in place to rule out any particular Christian denomination from coming into power over the others, not for the equality of all religions. This was the wording proposed by George Mason:

[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

The framers intended that the federal government wouldn't interfere with the free practice of the Christian religion, as this makes plainly obvious.

Justice Jospeh Story:

"the real object of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to demand, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects."

Second, the constitution makes a provision for sunday worship, which shows the Christian orientation of America and the framers, and the political recognition they gave to that fact:

“If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it....”

Third, it is finished thusly:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth....

Notice what it says? If it was a secular document, it would have used a secular dating method. That is an explicit reference to Jesus Christ.

After the constitution was signed and finished, George Washington made this proclaimation:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/GW/gw004.html

So, if you think there is equity in our positions, by all means go find the ten or so quotes that atheists use to try to justify that this isn't a Christian nation, and then I will return with the hundreds I can use to prove otherwise.

Here's the deal with your "truth", shiny...your "truth" comes from an ancient text written thousands of years ago by man. Your entire "truth" is founded on the premise that the book is the word of a god. If one thing in that book is flawed, it compromises the entire premise. So you see, if you're intelligent enough, you should know that understanding science that has explained the world as different than the bible creates a conflict of interest for you. On the other hand, science is the act of testing a premise through the collection of data to form a conclusion. Science is wrong constantly, but every consecutive time it's wrong, it's more right than the time before. It doesn't base itself on the premise that it HAS to be right.

I understand that science functions as your religion, but the two things are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps you don't understand that the roots of modern science are actually in Christian Europe. The pioneers were devout Christians who believed we could investigate an orderly and lawfully ordained Universe and look for Universal laws that governed it.

http://www.bede.org.uk/sciencehistory.htm
http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/
http://www.rae.org/jaki.html

>> ^rottenseed:
Red shift is a term referring to the divisive

It has been legitimately observed: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606294

Ultimately more observations are needed. You should watch the video I provided earlier.


>> ^dag:
That's adorable! >> ^shinyblurry:
Red shift quantization indicates that the Milky Way is at the center of the Universe.

@shinyblurry I really don't want to single you out too much (ol'@siftbot rules and such--I highly agree with them), as I already did once above, so this will be the last response or comment in direction to your comments.

Did you even notice that above you posted a quick fire, five posts amongst even the many other posts you still are posting; then, again, four more in rapid succession? I know you do your best to have your viewpoint and to try to describe it. But, the shear scale of material--which I assume is a mix-mash of text from elsewhere, perhaps even previous thoughts--is enormous. It's the same for every comment section you've ever been a part of. It's always the same subject.



To me, it's a bit ridiculous and seems like spam. But, the community is keeping you. I would just like to see that ability to comment spread out into further areas in the community (comedy, music, etc...; void of the necessary religious crutch). My two cents, but it is your experience of course.

shinyblurry, which christian denomination are you?

My comments are all original with occassional quotes and videos. They were all in response to people who had directly addressed me. They are all at the same time because when I get on the site I answer all the people who have addressed me at the same time. If you don't genertally want me to talk about Christianity, don't post anti-christian videos. I would probably be less involved in other peoples videos if the sift didn't downvote nearly everything I have ever submitted. Feel free to single me out all you like..doesn't bother me at all.


>> ^kceaton1:
@shinyblurry I really don't want to single you out too much (ol'@siftbot rules and such--I highly agree with them), as I already did once above, so this will be the last response or comment in direction to your comments.
Did you even notice that above you posted a quick fire, five posts amongst even the many other posts you still are posting; then, again, four more in rapid succession? I know you do your best to have your viewpoint and to try to describe it. But, the shear scale of material--which I assume is a mix-mash of text from elsewhere, perhaps even previous thoughts--is enormous. It's the same for every comment section you've ever been a part of. It's always the same subject.
To me, it's a bit ridiculous and seems like spam. But, the community is keeping you. I would just like to see that ability to comment spread out into further areas in the community (comedy, music, etc...; void of the necessary religious crutch). My two cents, but it is your experience of course.

I'm non-denominational, however, if I could pick any I had an affinity for it would be the baptists.

>> ^Diogenes:
shinyblurry, which christian denomination are you?

so you believe in the holy trinity, that is... a single god in three parts?>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm non-denominational, however, if I could pick any I had an affinity for it would be the baptists.
>> ^Diogenes:
shinyblurry, which christian denomination are you?

Yes, in fact, it was one of the major reasons I became a Christian, because beforehand God had drilled it into my head that He is 3 in 1..and it drove me crazy because I didn't have any idea what it meant until I started to read the bible.

>> ^Diogenes:
so you believe in the holy trinity, that is... a single god in three parts?>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm non-denominational, however, if I could pick any I had an affinity for it would be the baptists.
>> ^Diogenes:
shinyblurry, which christian denomination are you?

so if the statement 'god is three persons coexisting consubstantially as one in being' defines trinitarianism, and the statement 'god is one person' defines unitarianism... you are a trinitarian, correct?

next... would you agree that among the founding fathers of the united states the following beliefs were held?

1. atheist (don't believe in gods)
2. agnostic (don't know what to believe)
3. deist (believe in an all-powerful creator god)
4. unitarian (believe as defined above)
5. trinitarian (believe as defined above)

finally... where does the word 'trinity' and/or its derivations appear in the bible and/or ancient manuscripts?

so if the statement 'god is three persons coexisting consubstantially as one in being' defines trinitarianism, and the statement 'god is one person' defines unitarianism... you are a trinitarian, correct?

Yep, I am a trinitarian.

next... would you agree that among the founding fathers of the united states the following beliefs were held?

1. atheist (don't believe in gods)
2. agnostic (don't know what to believe)
3. deist (believe in an all-powerful creator god)
4. unitarian (believe as defined above)
5. trinitarian (believe as defined above)

I would agree that all of these views were represented, but the vast majority of them were trinitarians.

finally... where does the word 'trinity' and/or its derivations appear in the bible and/or ancient manuscripts?

The word trinity does not appear in the bible, but the concept of the trinity certainly does. There are many concepts taught in the bible which are not specifically named, so a lack of the word "trinity" isn't proof that there is no such thing. You have to go by what the bible teaches about the nature of God, and it teaches that the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are all God, and that there is only one God and not three Gods. Here are a couple of verses mentioning them together:

•Matt. 28:19, Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
•2 Cor. 13:14, The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.


>> ^Diogenes:
so if the statement 'god is three persons coexisting consubstantially as one in being' defines trinitarianism, and the statement 'god is one person' defines unitarianism... you are a trinitarian, correct?
next... would you agree that among the founding fathers of the united states the following beliefs were held?
1. atheist (don't believe in gods)
2. agnostic (don't know what to believe)
3. deist (believe in an all-powerful creator god)
4. unitarian (believe as defined above)
5. trinitarian (believe as defined above)
finally... where does the word 'trinity' and/or its derivations appear in the bible and/or ancient manuscripts?

i see... so if the scriptures mention three things together in one sentence, they become a trinity... a christian concept... a dogmatic practice, eg knife, fork and spoon

and you consider those two bible verses as enough to split god into three pieces? to treble his persona without increasing his divinity? like a lego... now he's together, now they're apart?

what do the ante-nicene church founders say about the trinity?

why does the trinity--the core of christianity--not appear until the 5th century of the common era?

i see... so if the scriptures mention three things together in one sentence, they become a trinity... a christian concept... a dogmatic practice, eg knife, fork and spoon

and you consider those two bible verses as enough to split god into three pieces? to treble his persona without increasing his divinity? like a lego... now he's together, now they're apart?

That isn't all there is, Diogenes. God is explicitely described as a plurity of persons throughout the New Testament, and the Old as well. I could give many examples. Do you understand much about theology? This requires a deeper understanding and isn't something that lends itself to a superficial examination.

His divinity remains the same; God is one, and operates as one being, and His operations in the plan of salvation are revealed through the different roles in the trinity.

what do the ante-nicene church founders say about the trinity?

They make the same agruments the jews make. How about you? What do you believe about God?

why does the trinity--the core of christianity--not appear until the 5th century of the common era?

Some revelation is progressive. The jews didn't understand everything that God revealed to them beforehand, and neither do Christians completely understand everything God has revealed in the bible.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You have a lot more problems than you know about.

Watch your step here, mate. You are drifting dangerously close to being even more of a sanctimonious turd than you already are. Again, any problems that I do have, will not be solved with the addition of more religion. Less religion? Might help things on a global scale, but on a personal level, I have removed it's (negative) influence from my life.

>> ^shinyblurry:

but you said it yourself, youre satisified with a worldly life. You're not interested in God, you don't fear Him, and you don't want to live a holy and sanctified life.

I much more interested in living a good life. I wish to lead an ethical life, be happy and be a good friend and husband.

Also I support that which is good and oppose that which is evil. Kinda like Jesus, or more awesomely, Batman.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Instead of changing or reaching out to God, you want Jesus on a silver platter, to pursue at your leisure. So, it isn't really a mystery why you haven't heard anything from Him is it?

If I had a friend who had a serious problem, but wouldn't acknowledge it, I wouldn't wait for them to come to me. I'd try to help. I think most people would. So that leaves the following possibilities in order of probability (starting at the most likely)

1. Jesus (the man) is dead, if he ever really existed in the first place. Jesus (the "son of god") is a fairy tale.

2. Jesus/God/Allah/Buddah is perfectly happy with the way I'm living my life, and chooses to let me get on with it.

3. Jesus knows I'm screwing my life up(!?), but is such a collossal dick that he can't even be bothered to intervene. And again, don't give me that bullshit of "he has intervened, through the church. blah blah blah". Back to my hypothetical friend with a problem. Let's say he's a heroin addict for the sake of argument. Would I be morally ok with just sending an email to the local addiction centre suggesting they look into this?

Again, any problems that I do have, will not be solved with the addition of more religion. Less religion? Might help things on a global scale, but on a personal level, I have removed it's (negative) influence from my life.

I agree, you don't need religion. You need to be born again and have a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.

I much more interested in living a good life. I wish to lead an ethical life, be happy and be a good friend and husband.

Admirable, but when you say good, you're talking about relative terms. Are you good in comparison to Hitler? Sure. In comparison to God? No, not at all. If you only sin 5 times a day, by the time you're 70 you'll have committed over 100k sins. Is that good? Rejecting God and sinning every day is not good, it is evil.

Also I support that which is good and oppose that which is evil. Kinda like Jesus, or more awesomely, Batman.

If you supported what was good then you wouldn't resist God, but by opposing Him you support what is evil. So you have them backwards. You're also borrowing from His moral standards when you're using the terms "good" and "evil". Under darwinism, there isn't really any such thing.

If I had a friend who had a serious problem, but wouldn't acknowledge it, I wouldn't wait for them to come to me. I'd try to help. I think most people would. So that leaves the following possibilities in order of probability (starting at the most likely)

And if you're like this person, you would keep refusing help over and over again:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/30/health/conditions/crystal-hiv-aids-atlanta/index.html?iref=allsearch

1. Jesus (the man) is dead, if he ever really existed in the first place. Jesus (the "son of god") is a fairy tale.

2. Jesus/God/Allah/Buddah is perfectly happy with the way I'm living my life, and chooses to let me get on with it.

3. Jesus knows I'm screwing my life up(!?), but is such a collossal dick that he can't even be bothered to intervene. And again, don't give me that bullshit of "he has intervened, through the church. blah blah blah". Back to my hypothetical friend with a problem. Let's say he's a heroin addict for the sake of argument. Would I be morally ok with just sending an email to the local addiction centre suggesting they look into this?

4. Jesus knows you're screwing your life up, but is allowing you to explore the consequences of your choice to walk away. He will keep reminding you that you are headed for a fall, but until that happens, you will probably be too proud to turn to him.

Take it from me. If I had taken the opportunity when it was offered instead of when I had no choice to admit it, I could have saved myself 2 years worth of calamity. You should do the same and put down your stubborn pride.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
?

@shinyblurry, read your post out loud. Replace every instance of the work "jesus" with the word "thor". Still sound like a good argument?

>> ^Grimm:

First link has no mention regarding "24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers."
The second link points out that I was correct that the statement is misleading. You are counting anyone that graduated from Harvard, Yale, and Princeton as having a "seminary degree".
>> ^shinyblurry:
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html
http://ourfoundingtruth.blogspot.com/2007/10/founding-fath
ers-considered-clergy.html
>> ^Grimm:
I believe this is misleading...what proof is there of this claim?>> ^shinyblurry:
24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers.




I'm sure the avatars will change, but right now I'm just loving the dueling Jesii.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm non-denominational, however, if I could pick any I had an affinity for it would be the baptists.
>> ^Diogenes:
shinyblurry, which christian denomination are you?



HA!
i knew it!
/does the "i called it first dance".
sorry,late to the thread aaaaaaand...yep.
this is a repeat.

Someone wrote of shiny: It's highly unlikely that you will ever convert anyone here but at the very least you'd be less despised if you weren't so angry and obnoxious all the time.

Shiny's the one being infinitely patient here, and by an act of free will endures these cheap shots. A less angry foe you do not have.

A good Christian spreads the Word, and in another Penn video Penn himself states if you Believe, you should be out spreading your message.

You should be grateful there are shinys out there to keep you honest, as honest as a liberal can be, anyway.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I have to mostly agree with you QM. I dont agree with SB's view but I enjoy the discussion when it's not ad hom.>> ^quantumushroom:

Someone wrote of shiny: It's highly unlikely that you will ever convert anyone here but at the very least you'd be less despised if you weren't so angry and obnoxious all the time.
Shiny's the one being infinitely patient here, and by an act of free will endures these cheap shots. A less angry foe you do not have.
A good Christian spreads the Word, and in another Penn video Penn himself states if you Believe, you should be out spreading your message.
You should be grateful there are shinys out there to keep you honest, as honest as a liberal can be, anyway.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Someone wrote of shiny: It's highly unlikely that you will ever convert anyone here but at the very least you'd be less despised if you weren't so angry and obnoxious all the time.
Shiny's the one being infinitely patient here, and by an act of free will endures these cheap shots. A less angry foe you do not have.
A good Christian spreads the Word, and in another Penn video Penn himself states if you Believe, you should be out spreading your message.
You should be grateful there are shinys out there to keep you honest, as honest as a liberal can be, anyway.


I can't swallow this. By its very nature, Christianity as espoused by Shiny is bigoted and infinitely intolerant (the ultimate end of impatience) of any view point in opposition of its literally written in stone beliefs.

Just because the evangelists adopt a cloyingly condescending tone that can be mistaken for politeness when they 'discuss' (read: lecture and don't listen) this with us heathens does not make them 'less angry' or 'infinitely patient'.

I think Shinyblurry is a pretty cool guy, ehs good at copying and pasting and doesn't afraid of anything.

Yes, I know, slightly improper meme usage, but it feels so right!

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm sure as an unbeliever you think it is purely coincidental that founding this country on Christian principles led to it being the greatest country in history within 200 years.
I'm sure that you also think that its a coincidence that since they started taking God out of our schools and public life in the 60's, violent crime has gone up 500 percent, murder rates have tripled, divorce rates have doubled, STD rates are up 200 percent, fatherless households increased from 6 to 40 percent, unwed birth rates of 10-14 year olds up 500 percent etc
This isn't how it ought to be, or how the founders intended. We have a society that accepts all of these diverse views because of the Christian principles of personal freedom and liberty. Atheists, using these great freedoms afforded to them by our judeo-christian heritage, want to use them to dismantle the very foundation of what gave them those freedoms in the first place. What in the world do you think is going to happen when you tamper with the foundation? It is all going to fall apart, as we see it happening today.
This country was founded on a covenant with God, and much like israel, when we reject our Creator, judgement isn't far behind. The secularization of this society is basically suicide.

>> ^rebuilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If you don't believe that America is founded on judeo-christian beliefs then you don't know anything about American history.
There's little point in debating the way things used to be, when you should be debating how they ought to be.


Nobody got that? He says it right there: "I'm a Troll, I'm a Troll!"

Shiny is here to 'sell' a point of view. Granted, it's the wrong audience to espouse fundamentalism, but if you see someone's house is burning in the night, you don't worry about their grumpiness at being awakened by total strangers.

Be grateful for hearing other points of view, and more grateful for resistance, it's the only thing that builds strength.



>> ^petpeeved:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Someone wrote of shiny: It's highly unlikely that you will ever convert anyone here but at the very least you'd be less despised if you weren't so angry and obnoxious all the time.
Shiny's the one being infinitely patient here, and by an act of free will endures these cheap shots. A less angry foe you do not have.
A good Christian spreads the Word, and in another Penn video Penn himself states if you Believe, you should be out spreading your message.
You should be grateful there are shinys out there to keep you honest, as honest as a liberal can be, anyway.

I can't swallow this. By its very nature, Christianity as espoused by Shiny is bigoted and infinitely intolerant (the ultimate end of impatience) of any view point in opposition of its literally written in stone beliefs.
Just because the evangelists adopt a cloyingly condescending tone that can be mistaken for politeness when they 'discuss' (read: lecture and don't listen) this with us heathens does not make them 'less angry' or 'infinitely patient'.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Shiny is here to 'sell' a point of view. Granted, it's the wrong audience to espouse fundamentalism, but if you see someone's house is burning in the night, you don't worry about their grumpiness at being awakened by total strangers.
Be grateful for hearing other points of view, and more grateful for resistance, it's the only thing that builds strength.

>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Someone wrote of shiny: It's highly unlikely that you will ever convert anyone here but at the very least you'd be less despised if you weren't so angry and obnoxious all the time.
Shiny's the one being infinitely patient here, and by an act of free will endures these cheap shots. A less angry foe you do not have.
A good Christian spreads the Word, and in another Penn video Penn himself states if you Believe, you should be out spreading your message.
You should be grateful there are shinys out there to keep you honest, as honest as a liberal can be, anyway.

I can't swallow this. By its very nature, Christianity as espoused by Shiny is bigoted and infinitely intolerant (the ultimate end of impatience) of any view point in opposition of its literally written in stone beliefs.
Just because the evangelists adopt a cloyingly condescending tone that can be mistaken for politeness when they 'discuss' (read: lecture and don't listen) this with us heathens does not make them 'less angry' or 'infinitely patient'.



Generally speaking you are right. But in this case shiny is a supporter of the company which only builds houses out of highly inflammable compounds. And he may was at the crime scene, who knows.

You can't replace Jesus with Thor..Jesus is a real person. Thor didn't die for your sins, or do things like this:

John 13

It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love.

The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus. Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.

He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?”

Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.”

“No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.”

Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.”

“Then, Lord,” Simon Peter replied, “not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!”

Jesus answered, “A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.” For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.

When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
@shinyblurry, read your post out loud. Replace every instance of the work "jesus" with the word "thor". Still sound like a good argument?

when i first engaged shiny i mistook him for a troll.
i have since changed my position.
shiny is a believer.
and this belief is derived with the certainty that the bible is the un-erring word of god and ALL his philosophy flows from that point.
this is not something he keeps obscure or hidden but is quite upfront about it,so it should come as no surprise when he responds in the way he does.

give the man some credit for taking the time to respond to the massive amounts of flack he gets.
feel free to disagree with him (hell,i do...and often)but remember he is taking the time to respond and engage with you.
i also feel he deserves a bit of leeway when he gets a bit testy.very often comments are directed towards him as if he IS religion,or that he somehow represents fred phelps "god hates fags" and therefore should be treated with disdain.
cant blame a man for getting a tad defensive.

he is just a man who has a belief based on the bible and to attack him based just on that belief wastes a fantastic opportunity to understand WHY a person may hold that belief.
it is only through respectful interaction that a more complete and full understanding can be achieved.
i may disagree with shiny but i find him a pleasant individual.

It isn't something that can be sold, but told, because faith comes by hearing. It is what is being offered freely..that the free gift of God is eternal life. It cannot be earned, but it is given to all those who would receive it.

You're right, certainly no one wants to be reminded that they are a sinner, but they certainly are going to wish someone told them later on. I had no trouble accepting this truth, personally..it was clearly obvious to me that I had done things which were offensive to a holy God. Some people are too prideful to admit it, though their conscience tells them otherwise. Why not humble yourself and be cleansed, rather than carry that weight around everywhere you go? It will never leave you until you ask for forgiveness.

So, I appreciate your words. I am only trying to do what is right. The people hated what the Lord had to say, and still do, but He loves us anyway

Romans 5:8

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Shiny is here to 'sell' a point of view. Granted, it's the wrong audience to espouse fundamentalism, but if you see someone's house is burning in the night, you don't worry about their grumpiness at being awakened by total strangers.
Be grateful for hearing other points of view, and more grateful for resistance, it's the only thing that builds strength.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Someone wrote of shiny: It's highly unlikely that you will ever convert anyone here but at the very least you'd be less despised if you weren't so angry and obnoxious all the time.
Shiny's the one being infinitely patient here, and by an act of free will endures these cheap shots. A less angry foe you do not have.
A good Christian spreads the Word, and in another Penn video Penn himself states if you Believe, you should be out spreading your message.
You should be grateful there are shinys out there to keep you honest, as honest as a liberal can be, anyway.

I can't swallow this. By its very nature, Christianity as espoused by Shiny is bigoted and infinitely intolerant (the ultimate end of impatience) of any view point in opposition of its literally written in stone beliefs.
Just because the evangelists adopt a cloyingly condescending tone that can be mistaken for politeness when they 'discuss' (read: lecture and don't listen) this with us heathens does not make them 'less angry' or 'infinitely patient'.

Rock isn't flammable

"Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell—and great was its fall!"

>> ^luxury_pie:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Shiny is here to 'sell' a point of view. Granted, it's the wrong audience to espouse fundamentalism, but if you see someone's house is burning in the night, you don't worry about their grumpiness at being awakened by total strangers.
Be grateful for hearing other points of view, and more grateful for resistance, it's the only thing that builds strength.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Someone wrote of shiny: It's highly unlikely that you will ever convert anyone here but at the very least you'd be less despised if you weren't so angry and obnoxious all the time.
Shiny's the one being infinitely patient here, and by an act of free will endures these cheap shots. A less angry foe you do not have.
A good Christian spreads the Word, and in another Penn video Penn himself states if you Believe, you should be out spreading your message.
You should be grateful there are shinys out there to keep you honest, as honest as a liberal can be, anyway.

I can't swallow this. By its very nature, Christianity as espoused by Shiny is bigoted and infinitely intolerant (the ultimate end of impatience) of any view point in opposition of its literally written in stone beliefs.
Just because the evangelists adopt a cloyingly condescending tone that can be mistaken for politeness when they 'discuss' (read: lecture and don't listen) this with us heathens does not make them 'less angry' or 'infinitely patient'.


Generally speaking you are right. But in this case shiny is a supporter of the company which only builds houses out of highly inflammable compounds. And he may was at the crime scene, who knows.

Thanks Enoch..I enjoy your company as well, and I appreciate you saying that..because I am still often accused of being a troll. And yes, I admit have been an asshat at times and said stupid things. It's hard not to want to respond to insults, but, when you don't I think it is something that builds character. Videosift has made me a more patient person.

I think there is just a strain of intolerance in the atheist community, that has become this militant antitheism, where you can't have decent conversation because everything being said is laced with insults and condescension. Videosift isn't really that bad in comparison to some atheist forums I frequent..and it isn't just me, because as soon as you open your mouth you have about 100 people all simultaneously ganging up on you and saying some really vicious things.

I know this isn't the way it should be, as we have seen on some of the more thoughtful debates on God. Where people actually treat eachother civilally and have thoughtful questions and answers. I think a lot of atheists want to act like it isn't even a valid question, or it has been sufficiently disproved, or it is something only stupid people believe, but that is flatly untrue. Even Hitchens said it was the greatest conversation you could have because the question of God leads to all the other important questions. So I think if people took that chip off their shoulder and gave the topic the consideration it deserves, all of this enmity could be avoided.

>> ^enoch:
when i first engaged shiny i mistook him for a troll.
i have since changed my position.
shiny is a believer.
and this belief is derived with the certainty that the bible is the un-erring word of god and ALL his philosophy flows from that point.
this is not something he keeps obscure or hidden but is quite upfront about it,so it should come as no surprise when he responds in the way he does.
give the man some credit for taking the time to respond to the massive amounts of flack he gets.
feel free to disagree with him (hell,i do...and often)but remember he is taking the time to respond and engage with you.
i also feel he deserves a bit of leeway when he gets a bit testy.very often comments are directed towards him as if he IS religion,or that he somehow represents fred phelps "god hates fags" and therefore should be treated with disdain.
cant blame a man for getting a tad defensive.
he is just a man who has a belief based on the bible and to attack him based just on that belief wastes a fantastic opportunity to understand WHY a person may hold that belief.
it is only through respectful interaction that a more complete and full understanding can be achieved.
i may disagree with shiny but i find him a pleasant individual.

I got here a little late for the long page of text to be relevant, so I defer back to the context of the video. The term "Christian" isn't really a new thing as far as history is concerned. And it hasn't only been used to unify, but for discord as well. Just the other day, I was listening to old debate of "Are Catholics really christian?". One might imagine the same conversation about eastern Orthodox Christians. Conversely, back in the first crusade, Catholics defended the Byzantines (Whom were Orthodox), then killed Catholic Christians that lived among certain Muslim comunites. The term is simple, but its use is not. Just like when you call someone black. Black means a color, but it CAN mean much more. Like, that guy talks black. Black, of course, refers to something more than just color...and likewise, the term Christian takes on many different meanings given the context. It isn't new, nor is it unique, nor is it insidious by nature; rather, it is the general nature of language itself and man wanting to group things together, even if the word itself is a poor choice to do so (see again: talking black). So, while I sympathize a lot with the heart of Peen's message, I think it isn't exactly accurate.

A MORE interesting conversation is a warping of the founding fathers as some kind of super christians. Many of them would fail the "Good Christian" tests of today, like Jefferson and his Big Black Bible Blotter, erasing all the things he thought silly. A Christian of today would find that highly dubious, even demonic (as per the warning in revelation).

I too, @shinyblurry detest this new "anti-theism" movement, or as I dub it, the Angry Atheist Alliance. While I hold that the ideas in the bible are flawed and incomplete explanation to the answers of life, I don't hold that you have to be a great asshole about it, which seems to be the modicum of the day. You aren't a good atheist, it seems, unless you are being mean spirited about all matters of disagreement. If I have offered up this attitude to you, then I am shamed and offer my apologies. I can be quite curt if I feel someone is being hostile or unreasonable, and if they weren't then I come off as being that which I detest...an irony from my own position, and a hypocrisy from others.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Shiny is here to 'sell' a point of view. Granted, it's the wrong audience to espouse fundamentalism, but if you see someone's house is burning in the night, you don't worry about their grumpiness at being awakened by total strangers.
Be grateful for hearing other points of view, and more grateful for resistance, it's the only thing that builds strength.

>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Someone wrote of shiny: It's highly unlikely that you will ever convert anyone here but at the very least you'd be less despised if you weren't so angry and obnoxious all the time.
Shiny's the one being infinitely patient here, and by an act of free will endures these cheap shots. A less angry foe you do not have.
A good Christian spreads the Word, and in another Penn video Penn himself states if you Believe, you should be out spreading your message.
You should be grateful there are shinys out there to keep you honest, as honest as a liberal can be, anyway.

I can't swallow this. By its very nature, Christianity as espoused by Shiny is bigoted and infinitely intolerant (the ultimate end of impatience) of any view point in opposition of its literally written in stone beliefs.
Just because the evangelists adopt a cloyingly condescending tone that can be mistaken for politeness when they 'discuss' (read: lecture and don't listen) this with us heathens does not make them 'less angry' or 'infinitely patient'.



To use your metaphor, QM: I don't see shiny and his fundamentalist ilk as firefighters or concerned neighbors rushing to save anyone from flames. I see them as self-appointed building inspectors who refer to an ancient building code and attempt to demolish any house that isn't constructed according to their specifications.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I like the cut of your jib.>> ^enoch:

when i first engaged shiny i mistook him for a troll.
i have since changed my position.
shiny is a believer.
and this belief is derived with the certainty that the bible is the un-erring word of god and ALL his philosophy flows from that point.
this is not something he keeps obscure or hidden but is quite upfront about it,so it should come as no surprise when he responds in the way he does.
give the man some credit for taking the time to respond to the massive amounts of flack he gets.
feel free to disagree with him (hell,i do...and often)but remember he is taking the time to respond and engage with you.
i also feel he deserves a bit of leeway when he gets a bit testy.very often comments are directed towards him as if he IS religion,or that he somehow represents fred phelps "god hates fags" and therefore should be treated with disdain.
cant blame a man for getting a tad defensive.
he is just a man who has a belief based on the bible and to attack him based just on that belief wastes a fantastic opportunity to understand WHY a person may hold that belief.
it is only through respectful interaction that a more complete and full understanding can be achieved.
i may disagree with shiny but i find him a pleasant individual.

I'm a "just born once" atheist. I lack any form of faith in any creator gods, interfering gods or any other so-called "supernatural beings". There are things I do not understand, but I live my life based on what I think is likely, what I can prove myself (or demonstrate) and what I otherwise can observe in nature.

Gravity, I can prove myself - to a certain degree, and when testing it, the current theory does predict the result, so I think it's true.

Evolution is a little more tricky, because I can prove micro evolution myself with fish, and with basically all the animals we have bred artificially, cats, dogs, cows, chickens etc. Macroevolution is harder, for me as a layman, but I think it is likely, because it explains so much very neatly, and it predicts how things are now, it is also the natural conclusion of micro evolution.

God can't be observed, can't even be tested for. God also have no direct impact on the world, other than through his followers, and since he (she/it) is not his followers, the conclusion is that he probably doesn't exist.

It is not that I have faith that he doesn't exist, it's just that I haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise. I have the same attitude towards Ghosts, Zombies and Unicorns. I would have had the same attitude towards Dinosaurs, because, come on, they're huge lizards, no way they exist! But the evidence suggest otherwise, fossils are real, they actually did exist, but not anymore, thus my earlier theory is demolished by the evidence, and a new hypothesis is formed, one backed by evidence.

Thought I'd throw in one more bit about the anti-theism comments above, like @GeeSussFreeK 's.

I wholly agree that I detest these once atheists that have literally taken what is normally a balanced "naught" position as to God(s) existence barring evidence and instead these anti-theists ditch that stance and deem that not only is all religion a wash, but any God is as well. They're very "militant" in nature and seem to draw in those that are less secure about their own opinions; kind of like the Westboro Baptists. Unfortunately, they are also very pro-active, boisterous, and vitriolic in nature--worse of all they call themselves atheists still, giving the rest of us a bad rap.

Some of them though are just plain tired of the charades they have had to play with men they worked with, people they once respected--but, those same people might as well put their workmate, friend, and neighbors into brutal conditions for a simple principle held: atheism. It's happened before, not as ruthless as it may have been in the earlier centuries, but black listing someone in a community can happen. I've seen it happen innumerable times first hand! I can't blame some for their outrage and pointed damnation they hold for others; it was created by those that may complain that the volume and acidity of their words may be too strong--or too true.

Of course religion has it's share of idiots as well. They are almost always the fundamentalists, like the Westboro clan. Papa (George H. W.) Bush once said that atheists should have no rights in the U.S.--if he had his way--they would not be citizens nor would they be patriots. Because, this is a nation "under God"--atleast after that was added. Maybe Papa Bush didn't know that historical part. Religion also has a grand stand in politics and the media. That is yet another thing that must be remembered is that when an anti-theist does speak it will outrage the religious; but, atheists, anti-theists (even Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhism, etc...), endure the endless exposure and should be expected to remain quiet... Fox News is the epitome of which I speak as it is nothing more than a pulpit for the rich, white, Christian, American, white collar worker.

But, there is one more consideration that HAS to be mentioned. As this point gets me to go after religious people all the time. If this makes me anti-theist, because I voiced a concern over what is being said--then anti-theism is far more wide-spread and has NOTHING to do with atheism. I do think this may be a common misconception from just my general experiences on the messageboards, here and elsewhere.

The problem is: Science!

This is especially true for all of the fundamental type religions. They all have a huge laundry list of minor science flaws to HUGE science flaws. Fundamentalism Christianity in the U.S. tends to take the lead in this war of fact versus opinion. There are plenty of fully qualified scientists out there that are religious, but ones that tend to go against the full body of evidence and scientific community to prove a religious claim tend to be "not fully qualified". They tend to use full scientific data and factual evidence to create a new theor...I mean hypothesis (many will try to use "theory", but their reason for their arrival at the new understanding tends to have no basis) and inject a very large amount of opinion, sprinkled with some facts. One such example is the red-shift video provided above by @shinyblurry .

Science can become a VERY heated area of topic when it comes to religion. This begins when a religion: tries to debunk a theory or a part of it, to commandeer a theory and direct a new conclusion to fit an already preconceived destination which has not been peer-reviewed or tested, repeating scientific theories in religious pamphlets or media while purposefully undermining the theory by not presenting in full and correct context or actually printing falsehoods, lying about the nature of scientific testing, repetitiously incorrectly stating current stances on various theories (like radio-carbon dating, etc...), attempts by any churches through the state to eliminate the teaching of branches of science--especially ones that have been tested so much that have attained the rank of THEORY (Evolution, etc...), again the use of lying in media against science--this has reached every facet of media-large and small.

I'm sure there are more. History has been a great use to show us what religion WILL do to science, even though all that is being shown is the truth. It truly is a dangerous weapon. If you can't except truth what hope do we have for you. Yes you can be a good person, but somehow you're flawed, unable to except reality.

When I was a believer (no matter what @shinyblurry says I was; I was Mormon and shiny seems to believe that his religious path is of course a T3 hard-line; were as Mormons just get the basic 56k dial-up...) I FELT the presence of God, or more accurately The Holy Ghost. I had no problem believing in everything science told me when I was religious. I knew it was the truth and I knew that God would not want me to ignore the grand insights into the workings of his masterpiece. I could feel in my soul, the first year I had physics, that something profound had just happened. I had found something I had been searching for my whole life. I felt connected to everything. I began to dismiss those that were religious around me and disliked evolution--to me evolution was so simple and yet such a wondrous way to create the most complex of things from literally the simplest. A literal masterpiece. So I do know that some can believe all that science says, but it's very hard in Christianity.

So I hope I made a point with this. Anti-theism comes from quite a few directions. The most usual and common sight is that you'll see between someone defending scientific theories, while the less common will be those that have been directly burned by the religious community they most likely once belonged to. The last is of course what was brought up in earlier posts: atheists who turn into anti-theists. They tend to be the kind that will assert that religion is evil no matter how small or insignificant it may play a role in someones life.

In the end most atheists boil down to this:

Stephen speaking to a religious friend...
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

~Stephen Roberts

/long

shinyblurry, the flaw in your thinking is that somehow this Bible is a perfect work and completely true word of God, and yet there are so many different versions. You can't even come close to agreeing on the basic concept of what is God. How is your Trinity correct, but the Catholic church is wrong, and the apostles are wrong, but somehow YOU are correct.

God spoke to me and told me that when Jesus, God (the old cranky Jewish one), and the Holy Spirit get together, they (like Voltron) form a being know as Thor. It is true and indisputable. There is no way you or the New Testament can dispute this revelation. You may call it the Trinity or something, but I have seen the true form and name it takes, it is know as Thor (head of Jesus, body of the spirit, mighty smiting arms of father God)

The real problem with your nonsense is that a child molester who murders old ladies and is also a serial killer... just has to say a few words and poof, he is as pure and spiritual as you are. I'm not sure how that sits well with you.

>>You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only -- James 2:24

Also, Jesus likes to contradict himself even from the same author within mere paragraphs of one another:
>>If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. -- John 5:13
>>Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true -- John 8:14

That silly Jesus, he is like a quantum Jesus, true and untrue at the same time.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You can't replace Jesus with Thor..Jesus is a real person. Thor didn't die for your sins, or do things like this:

wooosh

"God doesn't listen to half-hearted prayers," when xxovercastxx asked.

I find a related thought experiment disconcerting. I picture a child upset because god hasn't come to her. She is honest, kind, lives by the bible, but she has not felt the touch of God. She asks the religious men why and they say "god doesn't listen to half-hearted prayers." From that day on, she spends her entire life praying, for 6 hours every single day, waiting for the touch of god, yet never feels it. And on her deathbed she dies knowing that she has not been accepted by god, and will not see heaven.

How do you know whether xxovercastxx was being sincere or not? You're so quick to assume not. She/he could honestly and openly invite god into her/his heart every single day and never feel god's touch. Would you sit there over the child from before, telling her "no, still not sincere" as she wastes her life in god's service?

If such a person feels no touch, then they are either insincere or god does not exist.

There may be millions of people that invite god into their heart every night.. some may even repent their sins for safety. In fact, i'm sure there are many people who identify as religious and feel like that. People who, unlike you, are not able to convince themselves that they feel god, but live religiously because they can't bear the alternative and desperately WANT to feel god.

Would you say that they are all insincere, every single one?

I fear the answer will be simply "yes." Anything else must surely make you question your faith, that god could ignore an honest soul asking for help?

@dannym3141

Great post, it brings up a good philosophical and theological question. I'm assuming in your post with @xxovercastxx you referred to @shinyblurry 's response; if this was not true, please state otherwise. But, this comment should be able to standalone by itself, I think.

@shinyblurry commented on my post above elsewhere (in my blog), where I said basically, "I was a believer in God, I felt his presence or more accurately the Holy Ghost's presence...". His literal response to one of my more important parts of my life (even though I am fully atheist now) was this: (in my blog, if you wish to read it directly; this is also located a few posts above here as well)
"There are two kingdoms in this world, the kingdom of darkness and the Kingdom of Heaven, and they are both supernatural kingdoms. You can get a supernatural experience in a false religion, but it is just a corrupt copy of the real thing. Were you feeling a burning sensation in your chest? What you were feeling wasn't the Holy Spirit, or the presence of God, but the false spirit that pervades the mormon church. The presence of God is something that goes beyond feelings and sensations. This is how people get duped into false religions, because they get a spiritual experience from a false spirit."...

So it may bring a little more light to your topic above. As I felt this was rather condescending and a personal attack to some degree(even though I am atheist), especially when it comes from someone who claims to have a spiritual connection to God, a good and moral person. There is only ONE Christian way, ONE true religion, and we are all an affront to the light and helpers of the dark. Those that don't hold these beliefs are Gods enemies.

I take heavy stock only in science now. If there is a God it will wait till after my death for my attention--for to follow one here, I may in the end hurt someone. Like in your post above or in broader implications like homosexuality and various other randomly adhered laws and traditions (honor killings, suicide bombers and jihad, corporal punishment, suicidal group pacts, etc...) that consider some people a dangerous threat due to a religion's view.

Vincit Omnia Veritas, this Latin phrase sums up what I'm willing to follow the most and what I hope is actually true for most of us humans--a true philosophical debate. That is why science gets my attention above all others, philosophy for some moral quandaries and comedy to help in a lot of situations were the outright truth may not.


/I did say I wasn't going to comment on @shinyblurry again, but I thought the way he responded to me was a prime example of a mental attitude towards those he may consider to be in the wrong and that it may give insight into your example above. It seemed almost misanthropic, but I certainly will not label shiny as such as that is up to the person to confirm; certainly not me.

shinyblurry, the flaw in your thinking is that somehow this Bible is a perfect work and completely true word of God, and yet there are so many different versions. You can't even come close to agreeing on the basic concept of what is God. How is your Trinity correct, but the Catholic church is wrong, and the apostles are wrong, but somehow YOU are correct.

The central truth of the gospel is what is important, and that is what has nigh universal agreement, throughout the church, and throughout history. That is, that Jesus Christ died for our sins, and through Him we are saved and reconciled to God. Anyone who believes that God raised Jesus from the dead and confesses that He is Lord will be saved.

The real problem with your nonsense is that a child molester who murders old ladies and is also a serial killer... just has to say a few words and poof, he is as pure and spiritual as you are. I'm not sure how that sits well with you.

The reason you have a problem with this is because you see yourself as a good person. Yet, the bible says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. If you only sin 5 times a day, by the time you are 70 years old you will have sinned over 100k times. There is no one good but God, and God doesn't show partiality between sinners.

>>You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only -- James 2:24

Only a faith that produces works is a justifying faith. A faith that produces no works is dead.

Also, Jesus likes to contradict himself even from the same author within mere paragraphs of one another:
>>If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. -- John 5:31
>>Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true -- John 8:14

John 5:32

There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is valid.

He is saying, if it were only Him that testifies, His testimony would not be valid. Yet, His Father also testifies on His behalf. Now let's look at the rest of John 8:14 that you ommitted:

John 8:14

Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going.

He is now saying that His testimony about Himself is valid, because He heard it from His Father, He told Him where He came from and where He is going. There isn't any actual contradiction, but just a lack of study.

>> ^joedirt

"God doesn't listen to half-hearted prayers," when xxovercastxx asked.

I find a related thought experiment disconcerting. I picture a child upset because god hasn't come to her. She is honest, kind, lives by the bible, but she has not felt the touch of God. She asks the religious men why and they say "god doesn't listen to half-hearted prayers." From that day on, she spends her entire life praying, for 6 hours every single day, waiting for the touch of god, yet never feels it. And on her deathbed she dies knowing that she has not been accepted by god, and will not see heaven.

How do you know whether xxovercastxx was being sincere or not? You're so quick to assume not. She/he could honestly and openly invite god into her/his heart every single day and never feel god's touch. Would you sit there over the child from before, telling her "no, still not sincere" as she wastes her life in god's service?

If such a person feels no touch, then they are either insincere or god does not exist.

Your story is clouded by all sorts of assumptions. You're working from the premise that God does not exist, so you don't expect anyones prayers to be answered. I know that He does exist, and that people fall away because they decided to go their own way instead of trusting God. A person who can walk away from God and totally reject Him just like that obviously did not have much love for Him in the first place. It's like being married to someone in a deeply committed relationship for many years, and then suddenly walking away from it because someone else gave you some flowers. Obviously, to these people, God was never personal, and was simply a tradition they followed.

What God wants is a total committment. A half-hearted prayer is seeking something from God and giving nothing in return. It is to be double-minded before God, and see Him only as the great ATM in the sky, who can fulfill your dreams of living a life without Him interferring in it. If you're unwilling to submit to the Lordship of Christ, I wouldn't expect to hear anything. This isn't to say God wouldn't answer even a half-hearted prayer, but you definitely shouldn't expect much when you give so little.

There may be millions of people that invite god into their heart every night.. some may even repent their sins for safety. In fact, i'm sure there are many people who identify as religious and feel like that. People who, unlike you, are not able to convince themselves that they feel god, but live religiously because they can't bear the alternative and desperately WANT to feel god.

Would you say that they are all insincere, every single one?

I fear the answer will be simply "yes." Anything else must surely make you question your faith, that god could ignore an honest soul asking for help?

I haven't convinced myself of anything. I was secular when God knocked on my door, and I wasn't even looking for Him. What I know is that religion doesn't get you close to God, and neither is it based on feelings. To know God is a personal relationship. It is based on love and trust. A person who is unwilling to change their life and serve God is probably going to be in a perpetual crisis of faith. A person who is willing to change, willing to humble themselves, will most certainly get an answer.
>> ^dannym3141

So it may bring a little more light to your topic above. As I felt this was rather condescending and a personal attack to some degree(even though I am atheist), especially when it comes from someone who claims to have a spiritual connection to God, a good and moral person. There is only ONE Christian way, ONE true religion, and we are all an affront to the light and helpers of the dark. Those that don't hold these beliefs are Gods enemies.

The truth by its nature is exclusive. On the question of what 2 + 2 equals, there are an infinite number of wrong answers and one right answer. Does the fact that there are an infinite number of wrong answers diminish in any way the exclusive truth of the right one? Should we say because there are so many potential answers that there is no actual right answer? Obviously not, so why do you think it is any different for the question of God?

Matthew 12:30

Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

I take heavy stock only in science now. If there is a God it will wait till after my death for my attention--for to follow one here, I may in the end hurt someone. Like in your post above or in broader implications like homosexuality and various other randomly adhered laws and traditions (honor killings, suicide bombers and jihad, corporal punishment, suicidal group pacts, etc...) that consider some people a dangerous threat due to a religion's view.

Hebrews 9:27

And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,

You will not have that opportunity. After you die you will enter into the judgement of God. It is not something you can put off even for tomorrow, but you are not guaranteed tomorrow. You need to get right with God before you die, or you will face judgement for your sins.

Vincit Omnia Veritas, this Latin phrase sums up what I'm willing to follow the most and what I hope is actually true for most of us humans--a true philosophical debate. That is why science gets my attention above all others, philosophy for some moral quandaries and comedy to help in a lot of situations were the outright truth may not.

Only the truth can set you free. Everything else is dwelling in the vain imaginations of mankind.

/I did say I wasn't going to comment on @shinyblurry again, but I thought the way he responded to me was a prime example of a mental attitude towards those he may consider to be in the wrong and that it may give insight into your example above. It seemed almost misanthropic, but I certainly will not label shiny as such as that is up to the person to confirm; certainly not me.

I am telling you what the word of God says. I know that you see me as something else, and you can place any label that you like upon me, but my only intention is to share Gods truth.
>> ^kceaton1

I'm a "just born once" atheist. I lack any form of faith in any creator gods, interfering gods or any other so-called "supernatural beings". There are things I do not understand, but I live my life based on what I think is likely, what I can prove myself (or demonstrate) and what I otherwise can observe in nature.

The central claim of the Christian faith is something that you can prove to yourself. If you believe Gods testimony that He raised His Son from the dead and you confess Jesus is Lord, you will be born again and receive the Holy Spirit. It is tangible and experiential. To know God is to know Him personally, and He gives you the evidence.

Gravity, I can prove myself - to a certain degree, and when testing it, the current theory does predict the result, so I think it's true.

You can think about morality this way. If you take a look at your life, you will probably see that you live as if there is good and evil, that an absolute moral law exists. Your conscience will tell you that much, before intellect even comes into it. Some things are right and some things are wrong. The whole world acknowledges this, and this points to an absolute moral law, which in turn points to a moral lawgiver.

Evolution is a little more tricky, because I can prove micro evolution myself with fish, and with basically all the animals we have bred artificially, cats, dogs, cows, chickens etc. Macroevolution is harder, for me as a layman, but I think it is likely, because it explains so much very neatly, and it predicts how things are now, it is also the natural conclusion of micro evolution.

This is what Darwin believed, and he expected to find the evidence for it in the fossil record. Except it wasn't there:

innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geologoy assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species

150 years later and it still hasn't appeared. You see, if you assume that all life has a common ancestor, then you have to believe that micro-evolution leads to macro. It's a just-so story. Darwin made a quantum leap of assumption when he extrapolated micro evolution to a common ancestor. He made a great discovery, but one doesn't necessarily lead to the other. The model of micro evolution is also compatible with special creation. Why should one be preferred when there is absolutely no evidence for macro evolution? Micro has even been demonstrated not to lead to macro:

natural selection, long viewed as the process guiding evolutionary change, cannot play a significant role in determining the overall course of evolution. Micro evolution is decoupled from macro evolution.

SM Stanley Johns Hopkins University
Proceedings, National Science Academy Science
Vol.72 p.648

They have been breeding thousands of generations of fruitflies and millions of generations of bacteria and never once have they created a new species. If macro is true, you have to ask yourself why there are limits they are unable to cross. Living fossils are another problem, creatures supposedly hundreds of millions of years old, and no change at all. They found a blue green bacteria (supposedly) over 1 billion years old, and it is exactly the same as it is today. The evidence all points away from macro. Fossils enter the record in stasis; they don't change.

God can't be observed, can't even be tested for. God also have no direct impact on the world, other than through his followers, and since he (she/it) is not his followers, the conclusion is that he probably doesn't exist.

If you can't even see the operations of atoms in the world, why would you expect to see the operations of God? The bible says that in God all things live and move and have their being. How could you observe that?

It is not that I have faith that he doesn't exist, it's just that I haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise. I have the same attitude towards Ghosts, Zombies and Unicorns. I would have had the same attitude towards Dinosaurs, because, come on, they're huge lizards, no way they exist! But the evidence suggest otherwise, fossils are real, they actually did exist, but not anymore, thus my earlier theory is demolished by the evidence, and a new hypothesis is formed, one backed by evidence.

It's good that you have an open mind. That's a rare thing in this world. If you don't prefer any evidence, but just want the actual truth, no matter what it is, then all is open to you. Jesus said, seek and you shall find, knock and the door will open. Take a leap of faith and ask Him what the truth is..ask Him for revelation. If He can't hear you, all you will have done is wasted a few minutes of your life.

>> ^gwiz665

>> ^shinyblurry:

"God doesn't listen to half-hearted prayers," when xxovercastxx asked.
I find a related thought experiment disconcerting. I picture a child upset because god hasn't come to her. She is honest, kind, lives by the bible, but she has not felt the touch of God. She asks the religious men why and they say "god doesn't listen to half-hearted prayers." From that day on, she spends her entire life praying, for 6 hours every single day, waiting for the touch of god, yet never feels it. And on her deathbed she dies knowing that she has not been accepted by god, and will not see heaven.
How do you know whether xxovercastxx was being sincere or not? You're so quick to assume not. She/he could honestly and openly invite god into her/his heart every single day and never feel god's touch. Would you sit there over the child from before, telling her "no, still not sincere" as she wastes her life in god's service?
If such a person feels no touch, then they are either insincere or god does not exist.
Your story is clouded by all sorts of assumptions. You're working from the premise that God does not exist, so you don't expect anyones prayers to be answered. I know that He does exist, and that people fall away because they decided to go their own way instead of trusting God. A person who can walk away from God and totally reject Him just like that obviously did not have much love for Him in the first place. It's like being married to someone in a deeply committed relationship for many years, and then suddenly walking away from it because someone else gave you some flowers. Obviously, to these people, God was never personal, and was simply a tradition they followed.
What God wants is a total committment. A half-hearted prayer is seeking something from God and giving nothing in return. It is to be double-minded before God, and see Him only as the great ATM in the sky, who can fulfill your dreams of living a life without Him interferring in it. If you're unwilling to submit to the Lordship of Christ, I wouldn't expect to hear anything. This isn't to say God wouldn't answer even a half-hearted prayer, but you definitely shouldn't expect much when you give so little.
There may be millions of people that invite god into their heart every night.. some may even repent their sins for safety. In fact, i'm sure there are many people who identify as religious and feel like that. People who, unlike you, are not able to convince themselves that they feel god, but live religiously because they can't bear the alternative and desperately WANT to feel god.
Would you say that they are all insincere, every single one?
I fear the answer will be simply "yes." Anything else must surely make you question your faith, that god could ignore an honest soul asking for help?
I haven't convinced myself of anything. I was secular when God knocked on my door, and I wasn't even looking for Him. What I know is that religion doesn't get you close to God, and neither is it based on feelings. To know God is a personal relationship. It is based on love and trust. A person who is unwilling to change their life and serve God is probably going to be in a perpetual crisis of faith. A person who is willing to change, willing to humble themselves, will most certainly get an answer.
>> ^dannym3141


You say i am clouded in my assumption that goes does NOT exist. Yet you work from the assumption that god does exist. Are we not, in that respect, equally flawed? If it is a flaw in my argument, it must be a flaw in yours and i think that might be unacceptable to your point of view and certainly would require you to make a new reply to my comment in lieu of that. If it is not a flaw, then it can't be a flaw in mine surely?

Hopefully you'll be able to answer my question now we have that cleared up. I have a feeling you will extricate yourself from the responsibility of equality though, and you will say that the assumption of god existing is not flawed. Yet assuming god doesn't exist is flawed.

Someone who prays 6 hours a day is obviously not praying half-heartedly, but in your example she never hears from God. This is why I said you are clouded in your assumption because the example is reflective of your atheism towards God and not towards what we're discussing. As far as our positions go, you assume God doesn't exist. I *know* that He does exist. You can believe that I am deluded but this is a knowledge claim and not an assumption. If you don't want to reply to what I wrote, that is up to you, but I spent time writing it and I would appreciate that you would acknowledge what I said before we continue. Thanks.

>> ^dannym3141

>> ^shinyblurry:

Someone who prays 6 hours a day is obviously not praying half-heartedly, but in your example she never hears from God. This is why I said you are clouded in your assumption because the example is reflective of your atheism towards God and not towards what we're discussing. As far as our positions go, you assume God doesn't exist. I know that He does exist. You can believe that I am deluded but this is a knowledge claim and not an assumption. If you don't want to reply to what I wrote, that is up to you, but I spent time writing it and I would appreciate that you would acknowledge what I said before we continue. Thanks.
>> ^dannym3141


Firstly, i do not know what you expect me to respond to in your post. Secondly, your post was based on the statement that my assumptions are clouded (which is unfair) and i thought you'd make another reply with that in mind. However i can see that you consider it fair to treat your opinions as more important than mine and therefore we must assume god exists, anything else is clouded judgement. I indirectly have the answer that i was looking for though; if god exists, he is not touching me through you today.

And i am always open to that happening, believe it or not. Maybe it will one day.

Thirdly, please do not assume that i am calling you deluded. Am i to assume you are calling me deluded to believe that he doesn't exist too?

Okay, let's start over. I apologize if I was being dismissive of your viewpoint. Because you presume God doesn't exist, you imagine that people do pray fervantly to know God and never hear from Him. That people could go their entire lives fervantly praying to God and die without hearing one thing. So, when I say that people don't hear from God because their prayers are half-hearted, you are thinking that I have to believe that because to believe otherwise would impringe on my faith.

Yet, I don't have to believe that because of my faith, I believe that because I know the love of God. I have felt that love that He has for His children, and I know that it is His desire that everyone comes to repentance. I know God doesn't toy with people, and that He is never unwilling to change someones life. He is willing to accept anyone at any time. It isn't a game of cat and mouse, it is simply whether someone is willing to submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. People are stubborn and rebellious, their hearts are hardened and their minds are consumed with this world. This is the difficulty.

No, I don't consider your views less valid than mine. We all have the right to believe what we want to believe, and I don't believe myself to be superior to you in any way. The only reason I have anything is because of God and nothing that I did on my own. I was just making sure you understood that I am making a knowledge claim, that God exists.

I used be agnostic so I can appreciate your position. I didn't see any evidence for a Spirit either. I just want you to know that Jesus loves you, and He does want to touch your life. It doesn't have to be some day, it could be today. You don't need to wait, all that you need to do is place your trust in Him as Lord and ask Him to come into your life. God does answer prayers, especially that one. He loves you, this I know, so seek after Him. I will pray for you.

>> ^dannym3141

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^shinyblurry:
You can test the claims of Christianity by placing your faith in Jesus Christ, and asking Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior.
And when he doesn't show, then what do we do?


Been there - Done that - Didn't work - Moved on and got a real life!

If gods were real, they would show up in times square on a flying gold chariot proving they were real by doing something miraculous that could not be explained any other way. None of this personal, "you must believe first", "our little secret" kinda deal.

Him, Times Square, Golden Chariot, miracles. Then I would believe.

And not dubious, could kinda have been by regular people crap - real, transformers huge miracles. Like making an ocean fly or something. Do that live on camera, then I'll come around.