>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I'd like a version where instead of battle, they'd make passionate love. There is no price too high for a game that allows me to watch a horse sex up a bishop.


Goddamn furries!!!

I'd like a version where instead of battle, they'd make passionate love. There is no price too high for a game that allows me to watch a horse sex up a bishop.

You might appreciate the group Bishop Allen's poignant semi-cover by the same name:

Streaming: http://www.imeem.com/squareofortune/music/YM3cVecL/bishop-allen-eve-of-destruction/

Lyrics: http://lyricwiki.org/Bishop_Allen:Eve_Of_Destruction

This fucker cites the work of Fred Leuchter as evidence that gas chambers didn't exist. (Fred Leuchter's story was documented in the fascinating Errol Morris film Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.). His so-called "expertise" is a joke, and his "investigation" of Auschwitz has been completely discredited. This bishop must certainly know this about Leuchter, because he's not a complete idiot. Nonetheless he lies through his teeth simply by claiming Leuchter's investigation is valid in some way.

Fuck him. I think he's anti-semitic, and he's using the Leuchter bullshit as confirmation of this. This is called confirmation bias. Who would want to support such an outrageous claim? I can't see a way around his anti-semitism.

This doesn't surprise me, sadly. I went to Catholic grade school and high school, and I encountered more than a couple of nuns and priests who, how shall I say, weren't fond of the "Christ-killers." One more reason I became an atheist.

Am I weird because I read the title as "Pope reinstates Holocaust, denying Bishop"?

"Ok, the Holocaust is BACK ON!"

Only regarding a very specific time frame.

David Irving getting busted in Austria for denying the holocaust comes to mind.

>> ^Irishman:
It's actually illegal in some countries to question the historical record?

If you choose to believe in a creator God then there can be only one God. You cannot say you believe in God then choose to say that someone else's God is also a God. So if you believe in God then there is only one manual - his will for people. If you don't follow it then you are disobeying his word.

Of course you can choose not to believe in a God, or choose to believe in some other type of God. However, I will continue to believe that my God is the one and only God. I will not ram my beliefs down your throat but I will not accept your God as legitimate even if he makes you feel good. I will calmly tell you my beliefs if you choose to listen. This is how I practice tolerance... you can choose what you believe and I will not persecute you for choosing something contrary to what I believe in. However, my beliefs are founded on his manual and they are not wavering.

I don't take offense to the video, I simply don't agree with it.

BTW, organized religion fails us because people bring in tradition and their own cultural beliefs into religion. If people followed Biblical principles (or whatever manual you really want to follow), then we wouldn't have the religious issues we have today. For example, the mess that the Catholic church has with priests abusing children is because the Catholic church doesn't allow the priests to marry. If the Catholic church followed their own Bible they would allow them to Marry. Second Timothy specifically mentions that Bishops should "be the husband of one wife". It's tradition that dictates that priests can't marry.

Well Bishop, i'm not being hypocritical at all.
The 2 cases are completely different, and the reason is you have to look at the context in which they were said.
You were picking up on westys spelling, which is insignificant in terms of putting his point across, and the words were still readable. I was picking on the fact that society has adopted this ridiculous thing of replacing 'have' with 'of' because of the way they speak, and adopting it as normal english, which is completely different to spelling a few letters wrong, because you're changing an entire word, it's a very retarded thing to do. Also when westy says something, his spelling doesn't immediately make the sentence retarded, because he strings together a logical sentence which makes perfect sense, and is articulate in the way he puts his point across. Now, in this case, your poor analogy from the previous video argument actually stands in this, because someone is completely changing a word to the point of annoyance. It's the fact that common people who say 'of' instead of 'have' (because only the common people in this country talk like that as it's their accent) has somehow been accepted as the norm and no one picks up on it.
Also, i wasn't criticising his point at all, i wasn't saying 'your sentence wasn't correct therefore your point isn't' whereas YOU were saying westys point was invalid, just because of his spelling - as westy has put in the above post.
It's very easy to put something out of context and criticise it. As you've demonstrated.
I also demonstrate my annoyance in this particular thread by repeating it in a 'rant' form, so it is clear that i'm showing my annoyance at the way society has adopted this way of speaking as the norm, rather than a specific grammatical error.
It's also an easy thing to change, where'as westys spelling, for whatever reason, is the way it is, but it's obvious that it's not done on purpose, and the points he makes as i've said, are articulate and clever, and so his spelling is excusable as it's irrelevant to the discussion - you made it relevant. And it isn't.

An athiest, a priest, and a bishop are standing around and talking, and the priest and bishop start arguing about how the collection should be divided. The bishop angrily tells the priest "Look, you draw a circle on the ground, throw the money up into the air, and whatever lands inside the circle goes to the church, and whatever is outside belongs to you."

The priest, of course, disagreed completely. "You simpleton, it's exactly the opposite! You draw the circle and throw the money like you said, but what lands inside the circle is yours and the stuff outside goes to the church."

The athiest, who is long tired of their arguing, decides to put an end to their petty arguing.

"What I'd do if I were you," he said, "is throw the money up into the air and let God take what he wants."

Alright. You made some good points. Like I said, I don't know much about it and I was honestly asking because I know I'm ignorant.

It's not about healthcare as much as it's about the principle behind this whole thing.

Let me tell you about some of my religious beliefs, since you brought that up. In the New Testament, Paul's epistles to the members of the early Christian church (following Christ's death) reveal that the early church practiced what Mormons call "The Law of Consecration". It is similar to Marxism in that everyone's needs are taken care of and capitalism doesn't exist (for the sake of the public good).

I believe that there are God's laws and then there are Satan's counterfeits. Here is a little quote about it: "To me that means that whenever God creates something that is good, true, and beautiful, Satan, in his devious way, comes up with something that is false, counterfeit, and ugly, yet appears to be similar to our Father’s creation." In this case, the eternal law is consecration. You share everything you have with others. Satan's counterfeit is communism. Are you following me? I promise I'm going somewhere with this.

In the early days of my church, they tried to practice the Law of Consecration. For a while, it worked, but people began to be jealous and resentful because some people weren't working as hard or sharing fairly etc., etc. and Joseph Smith did away with it in favor of tithing. Tithing is the lower law and the law of consecration is the higher law. (I don't know how much you know about Christian theology, but it's like Moses' Law being lower until Jesus came and gave a higher law. Jesus said "turn the other cheek" and Moses said "an eye for an eye.") We pay tithing for the greater good ("us") as a sacrifice to prepare us for a time when we are righteous enough to be given the higher law again.


Tithing is 10% of our income and is used for many things. We know that our money is being used where we want it to be used and we give it voluntarily. We also give what are called Fast Offerings. That is, we fast once a month and have the choice to give the money that we saved on food to the church and the money is distributed to the needy. Most people give a lot more than they saved on food, though.

The way it works is that the Bishop interviews people who aren't doing well financially and helps them become self-reliant if they possibly can. If they can't, the church gives them money to support them until they can find a way to support themselves. Also, the Bishop will often give the person the opportunity to serve the church in some way so that they can feel as if they're earning the money. This is a good system. Satan's counterfeit is socialism. The government takes our money by force and does with it what it pleases and we have no idea what happens to most of it. Much of it goes to the rich and to those who don't deserve it and who didn't work for it. Often, our welfare system helps people who really need help and I'm delighted about that, but much of the time my money goes to the lazy, to those who abuse their own bodies with smoking and unhealthy lifestyles, to those who want a vasectomy because other forms of contraception are just too difficult for them to handle, to those whose fathers and grandfathers were on welfare, to those who won't do what it takes to get/hold a job, to corrupt politicians and rich corporations, and so many others.

Like I said before, I give a huge chunk of my money to charity. I give it VOLUNTARILY. It's not all about me, me, me. It's about what is just and what is unjust. It is unjust for people to get free handouts unless they are really in need and cannot possibly take care of themlselves. To give people stuff that they don't deserve is not doing them a favor. Indeed, it is perpetuating ignorance and laziness and co-dependency instead of the things that truly make people feel like worthwhile human beings like self-reliance and hard work. The Lord's way of service and sacrifice and benefitting the greater good makes people happy. Socialism isn't right for that reason.

But I really do believe that we need government programs for those that cannot help themselves. I just don't like the way things are looking right now. We're slipping into socialism and I don't like it one bit. I wish there was a way to fix healthcare without privatizing.

Those were my opinions, by the way. Not church doctrines. The church doesn't take a stand on political topics.

I have more to say but I'm sick of typing and I don't think you want to read it, anyway.

In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Have you watched Sicko (Michael Moore, who I'm going to guess you don't like), if not, do so, it demonstrates the differences between the US and countries like ours.

I see that you have the usual right wing view of "How does it work besides you having to pay for somebody else's elective surgery?" You're coming from the viewpoint of me, me, me, rather than us, us, us.

Which, considering your strong religious views is odd, as the Christian ethos is 'do unto others as you would have done unto you'... which to me I would read 'If I were sick and couldn't afford to pay for a heart operation, I would hope that others might help me.'

Really, do you think we notice the money that goes towards public health? Nope.

Do we notice the huge difference in the cost of medicine and health care day to day for all of us here compared to places like the states? You betcha.

Really, even though you have private health cover, you should check out Sicko, it shows that just having cover doesn't mean things are going to be covered. And do you think it's right that before a doctor will perform LIFE saving procedures on you they ask about your cover, whether they'll get paid for it?

It's disgusting.

And breeding excellence is a load of absolute toss.

As I mentioned, one of my sons has a host of heart conditions, what we discovered is that we, right here in Melbourne Australia, with its public health system, not having to pay for it... we have one of the absolute BEST heart care centres in the world. The care we get for our son is second to none... really, they are superb, and we've read a lot on it, and talked to many, many people in the same boat around the world, and the quality of care in the states is no better, and the cost is far, far more.

I know which health care system I'd want.

And, by the way, I DO have private health care also, because we can afford it, and because you benefit for doing so and helping out further. And if you think that the rest of the country is paying for people to have boob jobs and the like you're very mistaken. By elective surgery, I mean things like vasectomies (very handy in keeping the ol' population down in this overcrowded world), and other things that are not life threatening, but impede the quality of life. (Um... warts being removed, wisdom teeth extracted, things like that)

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
?

>> ^budzos:
What about the magic underpants?


>> ^MINK:
i think what's wrong with it is: it's kinda bullshit from a lot of perspectives, both in content and by omission. but upvote because it's interesting to see all sides.


I appreciate the upvote and the comment that it is good to see all sides. I agree, and I think the Mormon side is sadly underrepresented, especially on videosift.

See, what this video does is it states the IMPORTANT elements of the church. Because most of the time people choose to focus on the unusual things and take them out of context, people think certain things are far more important to the church than they really are. For instance, the sacred garments that they wear (which, by the way, is not unheard of in other religions) are not by any means a main focus of their faith. You won't hear them talking about them in church because they are sacred to them, and they don't want the issue misunderstood and trampled under the feet of cruel people like Safran. They are not considered magic in any way, they are simply a reminder to the members of the church of the covenants that they make with God to keep his commandments. People choose to make such a big deal out of them it amazes me. I watched that video where Mormons are seen talking about how the garments protect them from danger and all of that, but most members don't believe that stuff. Those people are just superstitious wackos that you get in any religion. That kind of Mormon is pretty common in Utah, as you can imagine. The symbols are not supposed to protect you from evil. They are just symbolic reminders to resist temptation. I love how that guy asks Mormon critics for information about the garments instead of, say, a BISHOP? Wouldn't that be a novel idea?

What about the content is misleading? And what did they omit that is more important than what they included?

i dunno....I remain hopeful...I mean shit man, half these folks have read Thoreau at least....stop shopping ya cretins, and run the Mexicans out before the whole fucking place looks like one giant "Made in China" Mercado.....

"No, no, while decreasing the literacy, morality, and conscience of our own citizens, we should import those folks who are both illiterate,in their own language.AND, who don't speak English....AND, give them free shit!!"-Thank's Obama, in advance....I shit you not, this chameleon will be the one who will offer some kind of amnesty to illegals, he will be a knight for the queen, and perhaps a bishop near mid-game, back and fourth, further weakening the structure-dumb-asses!!...see, always the hope to not despair, but frustration-

Hey Dag, do us all a favor and keep your Obama dick-sucking down to a minimum, the next time yer favorite show comes on.....uggggghhh-I'm soooooory....Looking at some of the comments about Obama from all of you "fans", is like watching and commenting on how effective a flesh-eating virus works on your own arm, while it crawls to your shoulder.....while all the while holding the antidote in the other-sick and twisted

Hey man! Nice attempt!

In reply to this comment by budzos:
Let's see, it's Saturday night, try to prove my nerdiness... in order of appearance:

Cyclops, Storm, Prof. X, Blob, Cable, Gambit, Mr Sinister, Acolytes, Wolverine, Jean Grey, Rogue, Sentinel, Captain America, Jubilee, Beast, Colossus, Senator Gyrich, Red Skull, Iceman, Magneto, Callisto and the Morlocks, Caliban, Mojo, Leech, Havok, Omega Red, Bishop, Hmmm and starting with the pink hair guy there are a couple characters I don't remember.

Let's see, it's Saturday night, try to prove my nerdiness... in order of appearance:

Cyclops, Storm, Prof. X, Blob, Cable, Gambit, Mr Sinister, Acolytes, Wolverine, Jean Grey, Rogue, Sentinel, Captain America, Jubilee, Beast, Colossus, Senator Gyrich, Red Skull, Iceman, Magneto, Callisto and the Morlocks, Caliban, Mojo, Leech, Havok, Omega Red, Bishop, Hmmm and starting with the pink hair guy there are a couple characters I don't remember.

I have yet to see a video related to atheism in which both sides are presented by beings of equal intelligence and scholarly knowledge.

Well, there is this one between Dawkins and Alister McGrath, I personally think the latter is a bit of a douche, but he keeps being mentioned as this champion theist.. http://www.videosift.com/video/Dawkins-Interviews-Alister-McGrath

Or this one, with Dawkins and the Bishop of Oxford, it is among the best, speaking for the theist side:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-Interviews-The-Bishop-Of-Oxford-35mins