Hail Satan!

The whole conservative Christian Republican movement is directly opposed to the teachings of the Bible, though they claim to be the most Christian of all those here... If I were still a Christian (I used to be a far right, evangelical, speaking in tongues, going to 3 services a week, Republican is God's chosen party, Christian once upon a time, even my earliest posts, under a different name as I couldn't recover the password for that account, praised Fox news, creationism, though not young Earth creationism, and more) I'd be worried that the modern Republican party may indeed be the Anti-Christ system, since deceiving Christians would be priority one for Satan. No need to deceive the world, as they are already going to Hell, who you need to deceive are those already going to Heaven to practice a faith that claims to be Christ like, but isn't, while turning people off real Christianity, which is exactly what Right Wing Christianity does. Everything they stand for goes against he beatitudes, the commandment of love, the commandment to treat others as you'd have them treat you, how the rich (and not just that one specific rich guy) are very unlikely to get into heaven, to help the poor, to heal the sick , not to judge, and all that without exception... They ignore the fact the actual Sin of Sodom wasn't sexual perversion (though it didn't help to be fair), but being a "land of plenty while doing little to help the needy and poor" (and as a side note, while the Bible does indeed mention the sexual immorality, it also mentions how hostile Sodom was to foreigners)... and ignore Isiah 10 ("Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights")

As to the John Adams thing, they dismiss that as Adams being just political, because he made other statements about faith... of course his pro-faith and other Founding Father statements about pro-faith aren't just for political gain... no... statements against it though however.... Just like Mark Zuckerberg's recent pro-faith announcements have nothing to do with how he seemed to be making political moves so soon after... I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact an atheist or even agnostic can't get elected to high offices (not saying he didn't actually find faith, he very well may have, just the timing is odd).

If the accounts of his sudden prowess are true then Johnson was probably on some level autistic. Autistic people who have special abilities in areas like math or music are not born demonstrating those abilities. They kick in at some point later in life.

And then there's the whole Satan doesn't exist thing @Mordhaus' wife or my ex notwithstanding.

how did this thread steer into climate change waters?
heh...god i love this site,and i love all you fuckers as well!

i don't really understand the rehashing of the election,trump is president.it is a done deal.

which is probably why i am struggling with the hillary diehards.politics is not a binary equation,so stop acting like it IS,and for the love of god stop with the condescension directed at people who did not vote YOUR way.ya'all are acting like we are your wayward dog who just took a giant dump on your carpet.

just LOOK at what you have done! LOOK at it! bad dog..baaaad dog.

@Stormsinger and @MilkmanDan were kind enough to share who they voted for,but they should not be put in a position to defend their vote.their vote,their choice and their right.

you may disagree,and that is fine,but to place all the blame on them,and their "like-minded compatriots" is arrogant,presumptuous and condescending.the reason hillary lost is not simply due to a few small holdouts.there are a myriad of reasons,and in my opinion,hillary should take most of the blame.

and what is this purity test @bareboards2 ?
do you mean a person standing by their principles?
remaining steadfast in their moral values?
showing us all that they would rather lose,than give up one ounce of integrity?

are you seriously criticizing people for holding to their own standards of morality and decency?

politics is not binary,there a many mitigating factors and political affilliation is only one aspect.

i have seen friends who voted for trump,and were extremely vocal about their support in the run up to election day,only to become eerily silent the further we got into trumps presidency.many of these people had voted for obama..TWICE..they wanted change.were desperate for change,and now they are finding out,that change may not be what they were expecting.

because the trump presidency is going to one helluva horror show,but there are also positives to consider.it is not a total loss.

i have the seen the very same people who have ridiculed and berated fundamentalist christians for being ideologically rigid,and philosophically immovable.turn around and express the exact same rigidity,and binary thought processes when it comes to their girl hillary clinton.

i was talking the other day with a man i highly respect and admire,who flippantly and casually called me a racist.
my crime?
i had the audacity to criticize obama.
which he doubled down and accused me of being sexist for not supporting hillary,and being critical of her as well.

how is this NOT ideological rigidity?
that to critically examine two prominent public figures automatically equates to:racism and sexism.

this is the metric that i see so many hillary supporters use when dealing with someone that they may disagree.this is a cheap,ill thought and ultimately WEAK counter to valid criticisms.

at what point do hillary supporters stop labeling other people the most vile of terms,simply because they did not step into line with THEIR thinking,and begin to examine the very REAL problems that both the hillary campaign,and the DNC,created for themselves?

or is everybody simply a racist and sexist?
that's it..no discussion.

this is akin to the fundamentalist christian labeling anybody who disagrees with their religion,or has brought up solid criticisms,as being an agent of satan.

" i do not like what you are saying about hillary,so therefore you must be a sexist".

the easiest,and most human,thing we do when faced with information and/or criticism that is in direct opposition to our long held beliefs.is to demonize the person making those claims,and therefore silence any further disruption to our own subjective belief system.

so when i talk about "insulated bubbles",and "echo chambers".that right there is what i am referring to,and it is dangerous.

i refuse to judge anybody on how they voted.they had their reasons,and i may even disagree with those reasons,but they have a right to their vote and who am i to judge them?

rehashing the election,or assigning blame based on ideological differences,accomplishes nothing.the REAL work starts now.trump is in office,and he is gearing up to be an unmitigated disaster.

so get involved.head to your next town hall meeting and speak your piece.start to connect with the political movements in your area and start to put pressure on your local representative.

i think we can all agree that trump is awful on so many levels,but to witness the american people become so politically engaged,so politically active,more active than they have been in decades.it really is inspiring,and all this is due to trump.

if hillary had won,would we see the same kind of newly energized,and politically active public?

i don't think so.

so let us stop with the rehashing.
stop with the blaming.
and get off our asses,step outside our own little,insulated echo chamber and start to engage.

don't know how to step outside your own bubble?
there is an app for that:
https://videosift.com/video/it-is-time-to-pop-your-social-media-echo-chamber-bubble

*oh,and even though i may have alluded to who i voted for.let me state clearly that i voted for hillary.i stick by my dislike of the "lesser of two evils" but come on...trump in the white house?

yeeesh....

*promote
when televangelists sell their souls,and then turn around and imply that anyone against trump has been coerced by satan.

seriously...that is just epic level cognitive dissonance.

Fight me. Or experiment on me with psychedelic drugs -- PLEASE. Why does the government never do any of the cool experiments on its citizenry anymore? Such a let down. All they do now is jack off to the porn on my cellphone. CIA stands for "Creepy Introverts And?" *monotonous Ben Stein voice* Aaaannnddd?? Anyone? Anyone? *Bewitched nose crinkle and librarian voice* Mmmmm... could it beeeeeee -- Satan?!

Wow...did Jim Baker just say the church had turned the nation around into a downward demon led spiral into WW3?!? Doesn't that also mean he thinks Trump must be Satan incarnate?!?
Never thought I'd see the day...where was he in October?

...but that eternity with God is spent 24/7 praising Him for all He has done for us... basically being a slave... or doing what the angles did before one of them thought he deserved the praise (which proves angels have free will despite what some Christians seem to think) and a third of all the angles thought that was a right good idea, so God punished them and tosses them from Heaven. Then God decides to make people, so He'd have others who'd "choose" to love Him... of course for the first 4,000 years of this time with people He'll be a racist dick and have a "chosen" people.... then He'll open it to all people if they accept His Son and His sacrifice... As a reward for those who follow Him and His command to accept Jesus, eternity, thanking Him for sending Christ to save us from the Hell He created to punish those who don't accept Jesus... Meanwhile, Hell, is eternal separation from God, which is likened to a fire pit... which most Christians take as a literal place of torment (some have Satan/the Devil in charge, though it was created to be a punishment for him, not for him to rule over... what sort of punishment is being given your own kingdom?) and others take it to be the more interpretative idea of what is like to have no God around at all...

So yeah, eternity as a slave praising God for saving me from the hell He created to punish those angels who dared not praise Him and focus on one of them, or eternal separation from said God... I think I'll chose that eternal separation. Better to be free and tormented, than a slave without will.

And wow... Shiny came out... haven't seen them for awhile... now we just need whomever it was with that Mr T avatar... and of course Bob...

Anyhow, nice to see the debate go, which I figured this would do... then again I took the video to be more about discrimination against Atheist by the US and the world at large more than the subtitle about being good without God, and figured that was where the talk was going to go.

https://www.amazon.com/Bait-Satan-Living-Deadly-Offense/dp/1616381965/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=VK9SBCEPR25B23P2V9X5

Thank you @enoch, I was trying to figure a way of replying on how there isn't a denial that a minority of Muslims believe in suicide bombing, but that it isn't as widespread and exclusive to Islam as the far right make it out to be. You summed it up pretty well.

I was also going to add all the abortion clinic bombings and the Atlanta Centennial Olympic Park bombing... all Christian and being done in the name of Christ. Then in Ireland/UK with the IRA... though that one isn't just religion and is more political (though again, many of those political differences has to do with worshiping Christ the wrong way).

There are militant Buddhist too, who do very violent and aggressive acts against others.

And there are plenty on the left who decry Islam, look at Sam Harris by example who argues the danger of Islam a great deal.

I agree, that we need to address the underlying political issues... and sometimes just need to let things go. There is a big civil war going on the middle east between denominations of Islam, and we are picking a side, which in turn makes us a target of the other side. We ignore the fact that the goal of terrorist groups is to make it an "us vs them" world, so that it makes it easier to recruit potentially radicalizeable people. I hear Christians bemoan how Christianity must be true because of all the persecution, proves Satan is trying to push Christianity down, but then they have zero empathy for how it must feel for a Muslim, and the persecution they feel, and how that must make them feel they are the right one for the same exact reasoning.

The fact so many Christians are not only willing, but calling for a war, for a new Crusade basically, shows that Christians are just as easily radicalized. They may not be strapping bombs to their chests yet, but I'd guess if they were in a Muslim country and felt they were being repressed, then I'd wager they'd be more than willing to engage in suicide bombs.

The pint being, yes, some Muslims do engage in suicide bombs, but it isn't just them. Christians have done it plenty in the past, and will undoubtedly return to it again, especially as the more radicalized and violent portion of them become normalized here in the US thanks to the election of Trump who encouraged them all through his campaign.

Another wonderful piece by John Oliver, but still not voting for Hillary Clinton. Simply being not Trump is not enough and that bar is so low Satan regularly bangs his head on it.

Hey there, I'm Satan.

I've researched the Church of Satan... there's one close to where I live. While at one time I found them somewhat interesting, I never found it that appealing, to fight against something to such a degree, that like Bob was saying, it's sort of like a constant flying spaghetti monster fest. Many people think The Church of Satan was highly influenced by Aleister Crowley and I do at least find him and the things he did and believed to be far more interesting than satanism.

*Warning I've only gone and done yet another wall of text again! This may or may not get read by anyone on here (good god I wouldn't blame anyone for skipping it), but at the very least it's formed the backbone to a video script so it's not a complete waste of my time! (he tells himself)*

This is as much @bareboards2 as yourself, but he already made it clear he wasn't willing to engage on the issue, so you're getting it instead MWAHAHAHHAHA! *coughs*

I don't wish this to come across as over condescending (though I'm sure it will none the less as I'm in one of those moods). But pretty much every (successful) comedy premise operates on the same underlying principle of irony. i.e. there is an expectation or understanding, which is deliberately subverted, and what results is comedy.

In this case, amongst other things we have the understood premises that:
A. rape is a bad, often horrific thing.
B. that there is an established social taboo about praising such behaviour.
C. that there is a section of society inherently opposed to making light of things of which they do not approve (or in a way in which they do not approve)
D. most words and phrases have an expected association and meaning.

What Jim Jefferies (an accomplished and well respected comedies amongst his peers) has done here, is take these commonly understood premises and subverted the audiences normal expectations in order to evoke a sense of irony, from which the audience derives humour and amusement.

A simple joke might take a single such premise and perform a single inversion of our expectation. e.g. my dog has no nose, how does he smell?....terrible!

By subverting our assumed meaning (that the missing nose refers to the dogs implied lack of olfactory senses), the joke creates basic irony by substituting this expected meaning for that of the odour of the dog itself.

This is of course a terrible joke, because it is as simple as a joke could be. It has only one layer of irony and lacks any sense of novelty which, might tip such a terrible joke into working for any other than the very young or simple minded.

We could of course attempt to boost this joke by adding more levels of irony contextually. e.g. a very serious or complex comedian Like say Stuart Lee, could perhaps deliver this joke in a routine and get a laugh by being completely incongruous with his style and past material.

And herein we see the building blocks from which any sophisticated professional comedy routine is built. By layering several different strands or ironic subversion, a good comedian can begin to make a routine more complex and often more than just the sum of its parts to boot.

In this case, Jim is taking the four main premises listed above, layering them and trying to find the sweetest spot of subverted expectation for each. (something which usually takes a great deal of skill and experience at this level)

He mentions the fact that his jokes incite outrage in a certain section of society because this helps to strengthen one of the strands of irony with which he is playing. The fact that he also does so in a boastful tone is itself a subversion, it is understood by the audience that he does not/should not be proud of being merely offensive and as such we have yet another strand of irony thrown into the mix.

You know how better music tends to have more and/or more complex musical things happening at once? It is the same with comedy. The more ironic threads a comedian can juggle around coherently, the more sophisticated and adept their routines could be considered to be.

Naturally as with music there's no accounting for taste as you say. Some people simply can't get past a style or associations of a given musician or song (or painting or whatever).

But dammit Jim is really one of the greats right now. Like him or lump him, the dude is pretty (deceptively) masterful at his craft.

There are at least 4-5 major threads of irony built into this bit and countless other smaller ones besides. He dances around and weaves between them like some sort of comedy ballerina. Every beat has been finely tuned over months of gig's (and years of previous material) to strike the strongest harmonies between these strands and probe for the strongest sense of dissonance in the audience. Not to mention, tone of voice, stance, timing etc.

I think Ahmed is basically terrible too, but it is because the jokes lack much semblance of complexity or nuance. Jeff Dunham's material in general feels extremely simple and seems like it uses shock as a mere crutch, rather than something deeper and more intelligent.

Taste is taste, but I feel one can to a reasonable extent criticise things like the films of Michael Bay, or the music of Justin Beiber for being objectively shallow by breaking down their material into its constituent parts (or lack thereof).

Likewise one could take the music of Wagner and while not enjoying the sound of it, still examine the complexity of it's composition and the clear superiority of skill Wagner had over most of this peers.

I guess what all this boils down to is, Jim seems to me to be clearly very very good at what he does (as he ought after all these years). Reducing his act to mere controversy feels a lot like accusing Black Sabbath of just making noise and using satanic imagery to get attention (or insert other less out of date example here).

The jokes were never at the expense of victims, they are at the expense of our expectations. He makes his own true feelings on the matter abundantly clear towards the end of the section.

As as he says himself his job is to say funny things, not to be a social activist.

I take no issue with you not liking it, but I do take issue with the suggestion that it is somehow two dimensional, or for that matter using controversy cheaply.

Offensive initial premises are some of the most ironically rich in comedy. It's like deliberately choosing the brightest paints when trying to create a striking painting. Why would you avoid the strongest materials because some people (not in your audience) find the contrast too striking?

Eh, much love anyway. This was more an exercise in intellectual masturbation than anything else. Not that I didn't mean all of it sincerely.

This story is so weird, because I was worshiping satan way before I started D&D.