BTS: http://twitter.com/jamesgunn/status/1484645711144796166 from http://www.reddit.com/r/television/comments/s9qn29/peacemaker_draws_the_dove_of_peace_on_a_sniper/htqh65i/ / http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvszWqbwfyA from http://www.darkhorizons.com/quick-news-daredevil-dates-peacemaker-jurassic/

If you hate the music, then try Cotton Eye Joe's version: http://youtu.be/ccwaYGpw1Sc from http://www.reddit.com/r/Peacemaker/comments/s593dt/peacemaker_opening_credits_but_to_cotton_eye_joe/

Eagly rocks! I don't love and hate this show. Wow, it's truly rated R/M with its nudity, cussings, violence, etc.

Your video, Peacemaker | Opening Credits | HBO Max, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This is probably the greatest trick the GOP and the evengelical leadership managed to pull on the Christian masses, to make them believe that somehow the GOP is the most Christian, while the Demoncrats are just that, Demons.

Christ said, let those who haven't sinned toss the first stones, but Republican Christians are the ones who fight to deny equal rights under the law to LGBTQIA+ just for sinning differently.

Christ said to treat others as you'd have others treat you, but Republican Christians are the ones who fought all the way to the Supreme Court for the right to deny service against somebody, again for sinning differently, then while they are still cheering they can hate gays more openly, get upset and call for civility when the queen of lies under the king of lies gets kicked out of a restaurant. I guess, judging by the way Republican Christians treat LGBTQIA+, immigrants and the like, want to be treated like they are pieces of absolute shit.

To those they typically say they don't hate gays, they "love the sinner, hate the sin", lacking any sort of empathy on how it would be to be told "I HATE EVERYTHING ABOUT YOU, but I love you... in a distant way as one should love any human". They somehow think all the bigotry and hatred they do in the name of Christ is showing the love of Christ... despite the fact Christ said Love was the greatest commandment.

They also then try to put the blame of hatred of LGBTQIA+ people on Sodom. And while it is true that Sodom's sexual immorality didn't help, as it is specifically mentioned, it wasn't Sodom's sin. Also mentioned as a thing Sodom was guilty of was being hostile to foreigners, but they don't focus on that, just the sexual immorality. And they never focus and the actual sin of Sodom, which the Bible specifies as "This is the sin of your sister Sodom, she was a land of plenty and did little to help the needy and poor in her border." They ignore that, they ignore the hostility to foreigners, ignore that Sodom was vain and arrogant, and everything else listed after it says Sodom sinned greatly, ignore everything except the sexual immorality.

They love the rich, though Christ said that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. To which they'll typically try to say Christ was talking just about that one guy, but he said "a" not "that", as that guy had left the scene. Now the instruction to sell your things and follow after me, was directed right at that guy.

Christ said to help the needy and the poor, and they are the ones who most want to stop programs to help the needy and poor, so they can save tax money on themselves, or make said needy and poor dependent on the church.

Christ said blessed are the peacemakers, but they are the biggest warmongers of them all.

Christ said heal the sick, and they are the ones most opposed to medicaid for all, and other programs that would guarantee everyone access to AFFORDABLE health care. Somehow they don't care about affordability, and focus only on "the ER isn't going to turn you away just because you can't afford to pay then"... no but you'll be in massive debt for the rest of your life, meanwhile every other Christian nation in the world has medicaid for all at the very minimum.

Christ said Love is the greatest commandment, but they are the most hate filled and bigoted people I know. The most loving and Christ like of people I personally know, Pagans, followed closely by Unitarian Unversalists, followed a way back by Atheist, then liberal Christians, Muslims and way at the back is evangelical Christians... they are one of the biggest reasons why Christianity is loosing numbers, because they don't show the love of Christ, and they don't really care, they just have to do what they feel is right.

Abortions are at the lowest rate ever, because Obamacare gave women access to affordable health care, which was the key all along, but they want to get rid of those protections, because they don't actually want to stop women from having abortions by any means other than making it illegal and punishing women, you can't have them having any birth control or anything like that.

But Republican Christians somehow think they are the only real Christians, that no real Christian could vote Democrat... which you'd think would be their first clue that they are in a cult, when they start judging other Christians as not being Christian enough.

I wish she wouldn't use the term "pro-lifers" when referring to anti-abortion advocates. They support the death penalty (despite Jesus saying it wasn't an eye for an eye, and despite the fact He said "If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone takes your cloak, do not withhold your tunic as well. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what is yours, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.…", and more and more that show He wouldn't support the death penalty, even if they had done something, which is their usual defense when defending their support of the death penalty), they love war (though Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers" and was clearly against war)... seems the Republican Christians in fact aren't pro-life at all, they are very anti-life, just anti-abortion... which is a fine stance to take if you want, just don't lie and say you are pro-life when you don't give a fuck about that life after it is born... they want to get rid of all programs that help the needy and poor too... though Sodom's sin was not doing enough to help the needy and poor, and many would also note that the Bible is clear that it was also guilty of being hostile to foreigners (though most will also agree that sexual immorality played a role, but it wasn't Sodom's sin by a long shot since the Bible names that specifically as being not helping the needy and poor).

I don't know if the right's stance on gun control is the hypocrisy I'd point out about their so called "pro-life" stance, but I'll get to the hypocrisy in a moment.

It is odd how after every mass shooting here, which means we get to hear it a lot, the political right always jumps on the "oh no, they are trying to take our guns away", "if guns kill people, why don't they try to ban cars which kill more people" and other memes when nobody is talking about banning guns or forcing everyone to register all the guns they own, let alone take guns away. Closing the gun show loophole (and all such laws proposed that would close it still left open the ability to pass guns to family members without a license or registration), allow the CDC to track gun violence... these aren't unreasonable requests. Even exempting the gun industry from the same liability laws we hold nearly every other industry to (with a huge notable exception to fracking... hmm... another one the right loves) seems fairly reasonable, though I guess I can semi see the concerns... of course said concerns go back to the fact that nearly anyone can get a gun quickly and easily. 30+ homicides a day, 50+ gun related suicides every day, 40+ accidental deaths every day, hundreds treated for gun assault injuries every day, thousands of crimes committed at gun point from rape to robbery and burglary, and the list goes on and on... I support one's right to own guns, including hand guns, but we need to admit there is a gun violence problem. And it isn't a heart problem, if Cain had a gun he'd have used a gun, a rock is what was available to him at the supposed moment of action. And it isn't a lack of Jesus problem as over 78% of people in the US general population and other far more democratic, first word, advanced economy, fully free will, countries like the Netherlands have far more Atheists than us, but have far less gun violence... less violence overall. It's not a video game problem, as those games are popular outside the US, and again no correlative rise in violence. (And yes, the UK violence rate is higher, but it isn't an apples for apples correlation, they define far more things into their national violent crime rates than we do, when all things are equaled out, they have a much smaller one.) So it's time that the right just admit there is an issue with guns and violence in this country.

But as I said, we don't need to point to the rights stance on guns to prove they aren't actually pro-life. Just point to the fact they are the ones who are most in support of the death penalty. Just point to the fact they are the most pro-war and are the loudest war hawks, despite the fact Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers" I guess they figure that means forcing everyone to the US's will, since somehow God anointed the US with special privilege above all other nations (after all the Bible mentions the eagle rising against the bear, which must be the US rising against the Soviets). Point out that they support stand your ground, somebody taking your nice new TV, stand your ground and turn that crime into a death penalty there in your home... of course Jesus said if somebody takes your coat to give your shirt too, not that I'm sure He was meaning to freely let people take all your stuff, but I can guarantee He wouldn't have been pro-stand your ground. They don't support having guaranteed affordable health care, or having government assistance for the needy and the poor. Apparently that life only matters while in the womb, the quality of life after that doesn't matter, and if they can make it worse for the child then they don't care, so long as their taxes don't help the child.

They aren't by any stretch of the imagination pro-life. They are anti-abortion. I think abortion is far from ideal, and should be a last option. The best option is the same thing that the women not having abortions have, affordable health care. Access to contraceptive options like IUDs (which don't stop fertilized eggs from attaching to the uterus which they try to claim) and the pill... and it doesn't matter if the pill itself is cheap, the doctor visit to get them and follow ups need to be affordable too... somehow the right really likes to blame women and hold them accountable for the pregnancy, when in fact it's the guy who should be blamed. If they don't want a pregnancy, then he should wrap it as soon as it comes out of the pants. No playing "just the tip" or anything else like that. Then dispose of properly, and ideally, don't rely on it as the sole method of birth control. So guarantee all people, including women, access to affordable health care. Give them their free choice of birth control and I'd say encourage the use of the IUD which has an amazingly low failure rate compared to other birth control methods... that is if she's going to use a contraceptive on her end. Don't make it a crime to have a miscarriage... which is some of the most asinine law proposals ever created... and rape is rape, no such thing as "legitimate" rape, I don't care if the Bible is into punishing women for being rape victims (a virgin not betrothed has to marry the rapist and he has to pay her father 50 shackles of silver for the father's loss or property and the couple may never divorce, Deuteronomy 22:28-29 or if she's in a city and betrothed then she has to be put to death Deuteronomy 22:23-24, a passage defended because it says "because she cried not", but how often do people ignore crimes or say they didn't see anything, heck people film others raping a passed out girl, so "because she cried not" is a poor excuse).

TLDR: The right are far from being pro-life far beyond gun control, they support war, they support the death penalty, they support stand your ground, they are against the government helping the needy and the poor, and are against a truly affordable health care policy that would largely eliminate the need for abortions in the first place.

OMFG... the threads... First Bob calls liberals two faced, but Conservatives were upset at the Dixie Chicks when they spoke out against Bush and his wars. Many conservatives demanded the Dixie Chips sponsors drop them and had large CD burning events, all over the fact they spoke their mind and their beliefs. Now these same people are upset at A&E for suspending a guy (a rather worthless suspension since the upcoming season is already filmed and he's already in it, and it is making free publicity for a stupid show about rich people).

This isn't a free speech issue. He isn't in jail for espousing anti-gay and racist remarks. He was suspended for saying something that made his part time employer look bad. Food Network fired Paula Dean. There was a PR lady who was going to Africa on a business trip that got fired after she tweeted she hopes she doesn't get AIDS, but no problem since she's white. You represent your company, officially or not, and make them look bad, your employer can fire you. You can say what you want, but sometimes that speech has consequences. A&E created the Duck Dynasty image, he made their network look bad, they have the right to suspend him... suspend, they didn't even fully fire him. Were they really outraged they would have pulled the show or edited him out of the upcoming season, but they didn't do any of that. They made a publicity grabbing move to suspend him.

This video also highlights the one key point I've been saying the whole time. That Jesus Himself said it is impossible for a rich man to get into heaven, doesn't matter if they want to or do follow Him, they have their reward here, and won't have one in Heaven. So Phil goes off on how gays are "full of murder" and how they won't inherit the Kingdom of God, but ignores that part where Jesus Himself said that people like Phil won't go to Heaven.

Then high, blaming it on some Atheist agenda. The same thing would have happened regardless of what religion or lack there of he had. This has nothing to do with Atheist wanting to make Christians look bad, as there is plenty of outrage over what he said in many Christian circles... you do know most liberals are Christian as well. Yes, most Atheist tend to be liberal, but the largest voting block of Democrats and Greens are Christian. People who take the Bible as the literal word of God, and believe Jesus was serious when He said to help the needy and poor, that the rich won't go to Heaven, that blessed are the peacemaker and not the warmongering Republicans, that when you pray, to pray in secret and not make a show of it the way modern Conservatives do, that know the reason for the destruction of Sodom according to the Bible was that "she was a land of plenty and did nothing to help the needy and poor", basically full of modern Conservatives, that the thing with the Angels happened after the city was condemned to be destroyed and they were there to rescue Lot's family, before Lot pulled the father of the year by offering his young daughters (think Olson Twins) over the angelic warriors of God (think Conan the Barbarian and Rambo) with magical powers, rather than just a simple "no". Anyhow, plenty of Christians are upset at what Phil said, because it makes Christians look bad, he not only bashed gays, but thought blacks were fine under the old Jim Crow era laws, thought Nazis were Jesus free, though Jesus and the Bible was their main defense for all they did... He basically made the Conservative Christians look like they ignore the main teaching of Jesus which was to Love one another. Jesus hung out with the sinners and tax collectors and told them of the love of God, not how God is going to condemn them all to Hell. If Jesus was alive in modern day America, he'd be hanging out in San Francisco talking about the love of God, not fighting to deny them equal rights under the law.

And of course Shiny... The controversy with Chick-fil-a isn't so much what some stupid old rich man says, he also made it clear that was the position of the company as a whole. And that anti-gay money was going to organizations that actively campaign not only to make being gay illegal in the US, in other countries where it is gay and punishable by death, they campaign to keep the death penalty attached to it. That said, at least Siny agrees that A&E had no choice... though, based on past posts, I don't think Shiny sees that the whole modern day Conservative movement is driven by the greed factor, that modern Christian Conservatives are willing to toss out every government program to help the needy and the poor so that they can give tax breaks to the rich...

It's all a free publicity stunt. I'm sure A&E will cave in, or Phil will issue some semi apology, "like I still believe it is a sin, but I'm sorry I likened them to murderers and I'm sorry about offending any blacks, I was just noting my personal observations growing up" type thing and he'll continue to rake in millions, going against the very Jesus he claims to follow... and he'll be right back on.

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

Those cops were awesome - blessed are the peacemakers.

I support the ideas, but the protagonist hipsters seemed like a Portlandia skit. I heard they have Twitter accounts.

While there are a LOT of things I want to comment on, I'd like to point out one thing that I very vehemently agree with. While I can't say that I believe that Jesus was the 'ideal' man, I can say that he's someone that a vast majority of people I know could aspire to emulating.

I'm glad that we can agree on Jesus. I highly recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Changed-World-Alvin-Schmidt/dp/0310264499

It's not Jesus that is the problem, as awesome of a guy as he was (allegedly). Christianity teaches that it is not the actions that grant you access to Heaven, it is God's Grace. Whether it's Grace because you've acknowledged Jesus as your Lord, or Grace through TULIP-style pre-destination... All of an individual Christian's actions (except for the 'I Believe' action) are, in fact, meaningless. If the speaker thought more about his own Christian Philosophy, rather than de-contextualizing Atheists' quotes, he'd have realized this already.

That isn't true though. Although, you cannot earn your salvation, there are rewards in Heaven based on what you did here on Earth. Neither is it meaningless to follow the two greatest commandments:

Love the Lord thy God with all of your heart, and all of your soul, and all of your mind, and with all of your strength.

and

Love thy neighbor as yourself

Unless you count loving God and your fellow man as meaningless, they are both a reward onto themselves and filled with meaning.

If Christian 'Judgement' were based on actions and not belief in God (hence, their actions and lives had meaning), as many of my non-Christian friends would make it into Heaven as my Christian friends...

The judgment is about sin. Your friends, along with every Christian, have transgressed Gods laws, and the wages of sin is death. The difference is, Christians have received Gods pardon for their transgressions, whereas unbelievers have rejected it and thus have to face God on their own merits.

One specific data point is violence. Every one of my non-christian friends is non-violent. They oppose violence, both offensive and defensive. Never once did Jesus EVER advocate any form of violence. And, if you take his life as a blueprint, he proved his mettle by submitting to being crucified, even stopping the people who would have defended him.

Jesus said this:

John 15:13

Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

There are some Christians who are non-violent (Mostly Mennonites/Amish)... I respect them. Others, not-so-much. Any branch of Christianity that doesn't take a hard stance against violence is twisting the Bible to their own selfish ends... which is, unfortunately, most of them.

A Christian is simply someone who has been born again, and has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and the true church is the body of Christ. Regardless of what a denomination might say, a Christian should consult the word of God:

Matthew 26:52

Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Lest you think I'm cherry-picking, read the Beatitudes... You'll read about being meek, righteous, merciful, peacemakers and persecuted... But you won't see anything that could have justified the Crusades, Slavery or Gay-Hate.

I agree with everything you're saying here. Christians are to love their enemies, bless those who curse them, and pray for those who despitefully use them. We are to unconditionally love everyone, because they are in the image of God, and because God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten Son. That is the model of behavior He has given us.

So, as an Atheist, let me go on the Record... I don't dis-believe in God... I dis-believe in the God that is worshiped by Christians. I also have very specific issues with other Religions, but that can wait for another time. Given that I've found all of the Religions that I've encountered to be as 'bad' as any others... My position is that God may or may not exist, but if He DOES exist, He won't be found in any current religious textbooks...

I'll just say that God deeply loves you, and wants you to know Him personally.

(FYI, I'm one of the "life is meaningless" people that the speaker seems to think can't exist. I can stare into the Abyss and take pleasure walking the line, knowing one day I'll fall in and vanish utterly. It does not, in any way, depress me.)

I don't think he said they don't exist, I think he said that on one hand you may believe it, but on the other hand, you don't live as if everything is meaningless.

>> ^hatsix

While there are a LOT of things I want to comment on, I'd like to point out one thing that I very vehemently agree with. While I can't say that I believe that Jesus was the 'ideal' man, I can say that he's someone that a vast majority of people I know could aspire to emulating.

It's not Jesus that is the problem, as awesome of a guy as he was (allegedly). Christianity teaches that it is not the actions that grant you access to Heaven, it is God's Grace. Whether it's Grace because you've acknowledged Jesus as your Lord, or Grace through TULIP-style pre-destination... All of an individual Christian's actions (except for the 'I Believe' action) are, in fact, meaningless. If the speaker thought more about his own Christian Philosophy, rather than de-contextualizing Atheists' quotes, he'd have realized this already.

If Christian 'Judgement' were based on actions and not belief in God (hence, their actions and lives had meaning), as many of my non-Christian friends would make it into Heaven as my Christian friends... One specific data point is violence. Every one of my non-christian friends is non-violent. They oppose violence, both offensive and defensive. Never once did Jesus EVER advocate any form of violence. And, if you take his life as a blueprint, he proved his mettle by submitting to being crucified, even stopping the people who would have defended him.

There are some Christians who are non-violent (Mostly Mennonites/Amish)... I respect them. Others, not-so-much. Any branch of Christianity that doesn't take a hard stance against violence is twisting the Bible to their own selfish ends... which is, unfortunately, most of them.

Lest you think I'm cherry-picking, read the Beatitudes... You'll read about being meek, righteous, merciful, peacemakers and persecuted... But you won't see anything that could have justified the Crusades, Slavery or Gay-Hate.

So, as an Atheist, let me go on the Record... I don't dis-believe in God... I dis-believe in the God that is worshiped by Christians. I also have very specific issues with other Religions, but that can wait for another time. Given that I've found all of the Religions that I've encountered to be as 'bad' as any others... My position is that God may or may not exist, but if He DOES exist, He won't be found in any current religious textbooks...

(FYI, I'm one of the "life is meaningless" people that the speaker seems to think can't exist. I can stare into the Abyss and take pleasure walking the line, knowing one day I'll fall in and vanish utterly. It does not, in any way, depress me.)


>> ^shinyblurry:

Genji,
I appreciate your words, Ezra, thank you. Let's say that you're right, that my life is meaningless, and that I am the one who determines what is true. Do you know what I would determine to do? What I would determine to do is to do the same things I am doing right now. Even if I knew Jesus Christ was not God, I would still determine to follow His blueprint for the ideal person, because following that blueprint has radically transformed my life for the better.

The Conservative government have done everything they could to undermine Kyoto since coming to power in 2006. They, along with their Oil Patch backers, have delayed implementing key strategies until indeed now it is too late, too expensive, and completely unfeasible to reach the targets that BY LAW our country had committed to. At the same time those same political and financial interests have waged a propaganda campaign to convince Canadians that Kyoto was too expensive and unfair to our national interests in that it put too large a burden on developed nations like ours while developing nations such as India and China were not obliged to lower their own emissions.

I remember being angry that the United States, under then President George W. Bush, refused to ratify Kyoto which the previous President Clinton had agreed to do. However Canada DID ratify the treaty, making our offense much, much worse.

The recent talks at Durban, known colloquially as Kyoto II, failed for the same reasons. The Canadian Government deliberately sabotaged the talks and bullied smaller nations to do the same with threats to withdraw financial aid and impose trade and travel barriers. Our government is behaving like an Imperial power forcing other nations to do what we, and more specifically our business interests, want them to do.

We Canadians have a certain view of ourselves- we think the world sees us as peacemakers and conciliators. This may have been the case in the time of Trudeau and Pearson, but is the case no longer. Harper is quickly leading us down a much darker path where we are increasingly being seen as obstructionist, militant and bullying.

Shame on our Prime Minister, shame on the Conservative Government.

Shame on all of us.

>> ^dgandhi:
When was the last time a piece of paper did anything? Some system of human involvement is always required, even "strict constructionists" differ on the meaning of any document. Attempting to run a society on ground rules without any interpretive framework is not even wrong, it just doesn't make sense.
Democracy is, of course, not perfect, but it is a functioning manner in which to resolve the conflicts in society while only rarely resorting to violence in the streets. While pure democracy would be terrible, it does not follow, either theoretically, or in practice that constitutional democracies make worse decisions than beneficent tyrants.
I understand that you think that the government being "honest" about who is in charge would be preferable to a shadow oligarchy, but I submit, that "democracy" results in more transparent oligarchy than explicit oligarchy. Pragmatically we are better off having some oversight in a "dishonest" system, than no oversight in an "honest" one.


Where constitutional democracies make better decisions than would pure democracies they do so because they're bound by rules laid down by wise men. Wouldn't you say theocracies have a kind of constitution? It seems to me the only difference is their constitution was written by stupid people. Stupid constitution, bad results. Wise constitution, good results. Is it the constitution or the wisdom doing the good?

You say democracy is not perfect, I say it's immoral and disastrous. Do you think all the freedom we lose and all the damage that's done to our society is a fair price to pay for a conflict resolution mechanism? Shackles are a great peacemaker. The absence of violence is an illusion. So beaten down are we by enforcers of the artificial consensus that we daren't provoke the most obvious displays of their aggression, but the truth is they bring violence to the streets every day.

>> ^NetRunner:
I would agree that if I'm going to entrust someone with authority, I'd rather they be smart (and wise and kind) rather than stupid (or megalomaniacal or cruel).
But I think you have yet to state a coherent alternative you believe would be superior. If I thought it were possible to set up a reliable mechanism where only people of "golden souls" got to hold the reigns of power, I might actually prefer it to conventional forms of democracy. I just don't believe such a mechanism has been discovered, and I doubt that such a mechanism is possible.


That's all I want from you, actually. I don't have a fully formed, coherent alternative to offer. It's the principle I'm endorsing, and the necessity of aiming our thinking toward its realisation. If you remember this discussion started with the proposition of limiting voting to people who could demonstrate they knew what they were voting for. It's simple little baby steps like that we should be considering, and if the only objection is, 'but that's undemocratic,' pfff.

"Blessed are the peacemakers" is not necessarily anti-violence; most wars are justified as being waged to keep or instigate peace...

Moreover, the Bible (including the parts with our favorite hippie Jeebus) is as much if not more about war, torture and death than it is about peace.

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." Matthew 10:34-37

Such a thoughtful post. Thank you for your contribution.

Does it really take a lot of imagination to realize that you have to teach dogs to kill each other in this fashion? I'm sure eventually those men managed to overcome the dog's natural instincts and they got the bloodsport they wanted. Still not sure what is funny about what amounts to the first phase in training a dog for fights.

I can see how you might mistake mounting for 'love' since the video was so cleverly overdubbed with a love song but if you don't anthropomorphize it, it actually makes it even sadder when the humans take the last avenue of peacemaking left to the two animals, leaving them trapped with no alternatives to fighting.