>> ^burdturgler:
The Gospel according to St. Matthew 7:1-3
(Lk. 6.3738, 4142)
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. (Mk. 4.24)
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
>> ^Nlt42886:
...snip...


Are you using that against me or against the guy in the video? Because only one of us was judging, I was going by what scripture says which isn't judging. If scriputre says something is true and I state what scripture says I am not being the judge I am letting GOD be the judge. But as far as making judgements go, we are called to make judgments on certain things based on our best knowledge and careful consideration of the situation. Even then we do not say this is DEFINITELY the case. We say to the best of my discernment this is the case. Which still leaves the possibility we are wrong. And we only have to do that on things scripture isn't crystal clear about.


John 7:24
"Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."

1 Corinthians 6:2
Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases?

But as far as judging goes you can't take on part of scripture and use only that...take more....use ALL of what the bible says about it....Here is a whole page on it
http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/Judging.html

>> ^Nlt42886:

>> ^Truckchase:
>> ^Nlt42886:
Second, everyone who claims to be a Christian isn't a Christian.

I guess you're on the boat with selective exclusion. I suppose those people won't have a place in your "heaven" either.
You are a member of a cult and should be treated as such. You have been brainwashed.

Jesus said, etc.
You're still in a cult. Your perseverance won't outlast our enlightenment.

The Gospel according to St. Matthew 7:1-3
(Lk. 6.3738, 4142)
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. (Mk. 4.24)
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

>> ^Nlt42886:

...snip...

>> ^Truckchase:
>> ^Nlt42886:
Second, everyone who claims to be a Christian isn't a Christian.

I guess you're on the boat with selective exclusion. I suppose those people won't have a place in your "heaven" either.
You are a member of a cult and should be treated as such. You have been brainwashed.


You do a lot of "guessing" and "supposing" but everything you just said is all your opinion. You say Christians are exclusive but everyone is exclusive. Everyone has a view that excludes all other views. Your view excludes my view. Even if you say you accept all views that itself is a view that excludes all views. I don't speak my opinion, I let scripture speak for itself. If you are going to say something you have to have some basis for why you are saying it. But if I were to ask you "says who" would you be able to say what you said is based on anything more than your opinion. If I claim to be a Christian and we are talking about Christian things, the bible is the only authority I have, not my opinions. Not what I think not what you or anyone else thinks but what scripture says. Otherwise we could go in circles all day debating our opinions. Scripture backs me up on what I said about everyone who claims to be a Christian isn't a Christian. I am debating on whether or not certain people are Christians not whether or not Christianity is true. If you are going to hold a debate on what a Christian is, you must not go on opinions, you must first assume the bible is true since the argument isn't on what religion is true but it is on what does a true Christian look like on the basis of what the book they hold as the ultimate authority says a true Christian is. See the video posted was about Christians not about why their religion is wrong or which one is right. It starts with the assumption that a Christian DOES exist. He simply states in his video what HE sees a Christian as but that does not mean that is what a Christian is. If you are going to define a Christian you do not go by the way some people who claim to be Christians act. You must go by the biblical definition of a Christian and see if they line up with what the bible says. The bible tells people who profess to be Christians to test themselves to see if they really are all the time. How would you be able to do that if there were not some distinguishing marks of a true Christian? Here is what scripture says regarding false professors.



Matthew 7:21-23

21“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22“Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’

>> ^Nlt42886:

Second, everyone who claims to be a Christian isn't a Christian.


I guess you're on the boat with selective exclusion. I suppose those people won't have a place in your "heaven" either.

You are a member of a cult and should be treated as such. You have been brainwashed.

>> ^westy:

you would have thought if u can write a pritty decent poeim that highlights all the idoitic things and redundency of christantiy and the core things that the majorty of the followers belive in , that you would come to the conclusoin that organized religoin is pritty stupoid, and that there is no benofit to bing religouse ,
you would allso hope that sumone that has a good crasp of language would be able to work out forthemselfs that the bible is not actualy the word of god.


You would also hope that someone with a good grasp of language would know that pretty is spelt with an e, grasp with a g, and themselves with a v.

I may be wrong, but I don't think he actually is a Christian - he's just written the poem that way to have a greater impact.

Your video, I'm sorry I'm a Christian - Chris Tse, spoken word, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^justathinker:
This is me watching this.


You have a flame thrower?

Gullible sifters! I could be the joseph fritzl of brazil and you´d be all gooey, "he is so nice."
I´d spit in your roast, but it would likely be enough to put off the roasting fire and you´d never figure out how to make the "magic heat that bites" again. Morons.

Now, mano a mano:

Laura, the BBQ Wolverine image you´ve posted is so bizarre it makes me want to roast myself. Better, to self-immolate. twice.

Thinker247, yeah two favorite memories. In your face, you who can only think of peggedbeas´s dry vagina, Dags waxworks and child molesting. No, that´s three memories. you win.

Blankfist you are a fake. We know you are the picture model for the goatsee and as such you never grunt when taking a dump. or even notice it.

Rougy, we may clean motels now, but we also invented them motels. We did. And your mother was there.

Inflatablevagina, you are so cute trying to be mean, I´ll help you out. Worse than pompous, both of my cats names are bad puns. (Meaow-Tse and the "Laconic" one who would only say "mee" instead of "meaow").So please execrate me as puns are humour´s low-life white trash cousins.

Ornothron, wow, now THERE is some research and effort! Congrats on the trainee who did your job. Having my fraudulent narcisistic ways exposed by a mechanical bird´s apprentice is the moon landing to my neil armstrong. And yes, it is excruciating reading through you people´s comments in order to find even one worth mentioning.

Gwiz, because you like futurama, I won´t mention your excessive concern about my body hair.

Therealblankman, except for choggie all roastees were chosen by god. So if you pray hard maybe He will listen to your high pitched whining.

Haldaug, yes, I masturbate to furry porn. but cmon, you and your wife are so hot!

Peggedbea, those were your titties covered in shit? No wonder it all seemed so normal I didn´t know the roast had even started.

kulpims, you can be the mother of my next daughter.

Choggie, when I said gullible sifters I meant you. Also you should know that when you scream fuck you we hear "good morning"

Don Juan, jump off the bridge, dont jump off the bridge, you guys please make up your mind already so i can mindlessly follow, wtf.

Dotdude, the only place I´d fear a candiru is inside my urethra, whereas spiders are scary everywhere. Also the Amazon River is closer geographically to your new orleans house than mine in sao paulo.

Rottenseed, after I wipe my tears I´ll tell you that at least (or even) blankfist know we speak portuguese, not spanish. And if I was fritzl dressed as santa you´d sit on my lap.

MrFisk, or should I say "imelda marcos", I may lure young single moms to my moms basement but you are the guy who marries them afterwards.

Lann, it was great that you put my two best memories together, thanks. Now someone explain to this "person" what is a roast.

So that is it.
Thanks for the roast, morons!

Now, Laura, you promissed I´d be tied up and filled with herbs.
never fail me again, ok?

and "Mr jester", these pitiful crowdlings dont have enough venom, so please make your dice choose easier prey for the next roast, such as Hitler
(Godwin´s law does not aplly here)

I don't get it. (tse)

Like...are you saying we all have to act like...what is it?

Nyin-ja's?

I poked the button thingies.

Like, oh my gawd! Nothing happened!!!



It's, like...duh! Am I dumb or what?

Ok, here are Lacan and Mao-Tse-Tung, loved-things destructors, sleeper of feets, food askers, general entertainers and the best cats in the universe.

ahn...
My name is Renato. I´m 'pregnant' of my first daughter, which we´ll call Lucia.
I´m 33, age of dead christs.
I have two cats, Mao-Tse-Tung and Lacan , who brighten my days and nights.
They like to break things.

I live in Sao Paulo, Brazil and am a partner at a 3D animation company, TSI, doing work mostly for advertising and architecture.
I´m originally a journalist, but went to grad school in NY, on the (in)famous ITP - Intergalactic Telecommunications Program, or something similar. I miss NY.

I like to write when I am procrastinating more serious work, but videosift is getting in the way of that. I love to snowboard, despite the fact that after a motorcycle crash and some time at the hospital, the doctor forbid me. Still I went for ten days at Whistler and after two months I was back at being almost ok. Worth it. Now I sold the bike to pay for all those diapers to come.
(queue music: Gogol Bordello - Undestructable)

About The Political Compass

In the introduction, we explained the inadequacies of the traditional left-right line.

If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.

That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities exisited in Spain during the civil war period

You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.

The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)

The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.

In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.
A Word about Neo-cons and Neo-libs

U.S.neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion.


International Chart

A diverse professional team has assessed the words and actions of internationally known contemporary leaders to give you an idea of how they relate to each other on the political compass.

We regret the present exclusion of some major leaders, especially in the developing world. This is due to our inability so far to contact independent experts.


How You Can Help Us

A great deal of effort lies behind the development of The Political Compass, and the realisation of it in practical form. It has occasionally come to our attention that other sites have tried to exploit our work by copying it, adopting our name, or linking to us in a dishonest fashion.

If you should come across any such sites, please let us know, so that we can take appropriate action.

A few critics believe that we should blow with prevailing political winds and narrow the actual parameters. Please see our FAQ 20.

Thanks from the Political Compass team.
US Primaries 2007
A few words about "The Extreme Right", and a look at the parties in England's local elections
ICONOCHASMS: How well do you know your political icons ?

New material is regularly added to The Political Compass - please keep coming back !

"Not one of the religious types have been able to offer a compelling rebuttal using evidence and logic to support their reasoning." To your points:

1. Atheists are more annoying than Christians.

I tend to agree with you that this argument matters little and is tangential to the whole topic. However, you've supplied a fair amount of evidence for this point including inflammatory phrases such as "magical teapot believers", "nutjobs", "full of shit", "I think you know where you can store your advice", etc.

2. Atheists are more evangelical than Christians.

Again, I don't see it being too central to the original discussion. It is interesting, though, that you stated "Militant, in your face, logical, rational atheism is the only chance we have of salvaging the shambles you religious wingnuts have made of this planet." Sounds like you're out to "evangelize" change in the world then? Perhaps even applauding where militant atheism is applied? More on that in point #4.

3. All humans, both atheistic and religious, are irrational beings ruled by emotions with their beliefs as thinly veiled icing on a primordial cake.

A strawman argument that is so over simplified and incorrect that it isn't worth addressing.


4. Christians have not been responsible for mass genocide.

Nobody denies the crusade, inquisition, etc. took place, but the issue is whether these people are "Christian" or not. Did they call themselves Christian? Yes. Were their actions aligned with the words and example Jesus laid out for his followers and, therefore, what Christians are supposed to be like? No. You are assuming that all those who claim to be Christian are truthful representatives of Jesus and not self-centered, power-hungry, opportunists who saw it was fashionable to call themselves "Christian" given the power structure of the day. You are attempting to equate two vastly different entities and, therefore, the logic fails.

Is it fair to level the same charges against atheism by equating the actions of atheistic states to represent all atheists? 26.3 million killed in China under Mao Tse Tung, 66 million in the Soviet Union under Lenin/Stalin/Khrushchev, 2.5 million under Pol Pot in Cambodia, etc. If you are going to make the claim that Christians are genocidal monsters, it would seem that atheists are in the same boat. If you want to talk about current events, communist regimes with atheistic tenants (e.g. China, North Korea, etc.) continue to be highlighted for human rights abuses as they target those purely because of religious beliefs (do a search on hrw.org for examples). The problem here is that it is hard to argue that these leaders are not following the "beliefs" laid down by what you portray of atheism -- religious people are "nutjobs" and there is work to do in "salvaging the shambles you religious wingnuts have made of this planet".


5. God wants us to have free will.

Free will is a core point used against the logical "problem of evil" or "problem of hell" arguments. You've had your own ad hominem arguments to try and avoid it -- "That's some good old fashioned bullshit religious guilt if I've ever heard it."or "More rhetoric and no substance." You also attempt to claim that free will can't exist in the Christian view -- "And the Christian set of rules by which you must live is most certainly NOT free." You are trying to change the definition of free will with freedom from consequence -- again, another logical fallacy. Along your line of argument, free will should include the ability to choose to go to heaven. However, if heaven is a "perfect place", would it be perfect if anyone and everyone could be there? Free will cannot make logical impossibilities true -- can I choose to make myself invisible? score 5000 on the SAT test? etc.


6. Atheists use "old arguments" that have do not hold water.

Old argument? Yes. The core argument of the cartoon is "The Problem of Hell", a variant of "The Problem of Evil"/Epicurus' Riddle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_Hell) which is a logical argument that has been around for a long while.

Hold water. Not bad. You could say the same of the theistic ontological argument too. Atheists and Christians have used these for some time and, as such, it is apparent that neither side considers the other's logical "proof" so compelling as to concede defeat. I expect that you'd claim this to be more "bullshit", as you are fond of saying, so I'll be more direct. "Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent." is not true. Free will and yet being unable to choose evil are logically inconsistent. On one hand, you have free will with the potential for evil while on the other, no evil but no free will.


7. Well over 90% of the world is religious.

Arguing over a relatively small percentage seems to be silly -- the point that the vast majority of the population is religious isn't impacted by the difference. It seems equally ridiculous to claim that a majority is proof of something -- I'm sure that Christian and Atheist alike can site a majority opinion either now or in the past that we consider incorrect.


And to sum up what we've heard outside of these points:

1. Then I suppose Jesus and the old testament God are full of crap as well. Which I happen to agree with.
2. But it doesn't change the fact that the Bible is rife with examples of God threatening eternal damnation and hellfire to anyone who doesn't follow his rules.

For all of the times you've bashed people for lacking logic or evidence, where is it when you make these assertions? You've read what Jesus did/said and can comment specifically how he is full of crap then?


Although it has been interesting to watch the comments go back and forth on this and to jump in from time to time, I find the following quotation by Elbert Hubbard appropriate, "Logic: an instrument used for bolstering a prejudice." As this string of comments (along with hundreds like it scattered about the internet) shows, God is not going to be proved or disproved by logical arguments alone.

this instead?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KTr8nr-tsE