LOL. Dumbest assumption of the month. No seriously.

I'm not "telling @newtboy that he doesn't know anything about it except for hearsay" - I'm pointing out what he has already admitted (hopefully you can see the difference). If I've read the bible and don't remember 100% of it (fucking please - I was clear that my knowledge wasn't eidetic) and you compare it to someone who hasn't read it at all - then that is a false equivalence. If you're going to try and call out some form of hypocrisy, you should probably get your argument right.

Pick any book you've read and I'll find something you don't know in it. I won't suddenly argue that "you don't know what it actually says", because that is not true. You would have limited knowledge, like every human, on every topic that has ever been.

Has your self-confessed atheism brought you peace? Are you an angry atheist? Are you vegan? Lol. I'm guessing that you googled every verse you quoted. So how much of the knowledge is yours?

As above - the bible read by itself without the context of Tradition becomes untenable. And literal interpretations are often incorrect.

No, I didn't argue that those verses you quoted don't say something along the lines of him being all powerful - they clearly do. I don't have issue with that. They say what they say.

I'm making my own analysis and argument of your examples (not referring to the verses), and the verses (separate from your examples). Do you have a problem with that? Are you calling the Bible fact? Or are you saying that the definitive interpretation of those passages is what you say it is and that is the "fact"? Or that those passages say what they say (and this is the fact) regardless of whether they are true or not? Not that you're unclear or anything.

I see you agree with my statements. Yet you go and make all these assumptions. Go figure.

Hey I'm sure whatever system you come up with will be heaps better than anything that's gone before. I hear all the 20th century attempts worked out really well.

radical islamic terrorism is the usage of a rigid fundamentalist interpretation as a justification predicated on abysmal politics.

ill-thought and short sighted politics is the tinder.
hyper-extremist fundamentalism is the match.

ISIS would never even have existed without al qeada,who themselves would not have existed without US interventionism into:iran,egypt and saudi arabia.

and this is going back almost 70 years.

so lets cut the shit with apologetics towards americas horrific blunders in regards to foreign policy.actions have consequences,there is a cause and effect,and when even in the 50's the CIA KNEW,and have stated as much,that there would be "blowback" from americas persistent interventionism in those regions.which stated goals (in more honest times) was to destabilize,dethrone (remove leaders not friendly to american business) and install leaders more pliant and easily manipulated (often times deposing democratically elected leaders to install despots.the shah and sadam come to mind).

see:chalmers johnson-blowback
see: Zbigniew Brzezinski-the grand chessboard.

or read this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

so to act like islamic radicals just fell from the fucking sky,and popped out from thin air,due to something that has been boiling for almost 70 years is fucking ludicrous.

radicalization of certain groups in populations have long been understood,and well documented.

and religion,though the most popular,and easiest tool to motivate and justify heinous acts of violence for a political goal,is not the SOLE tool.

nationalism is another tool used to radicalize a population.
see:the nazi party.

but it always comes down to:tribalism of one kind or another.

@transmorpher

so when you use this "ISIS themselves, in their own magazine (Dabiq) go out of their way to explain that they are not motivated by the xenophobia or the US fighting wars in their countries. They make specifically state that their motivation is simply because you aren't muslim. You can go an read it for yourself. They are self confessed fanatics that need to kill you to go to heaven. "

to solidify your argument,all i see is someone ignoring the history and pertinent reasons why that group even exists.

you may recall that ISIS was once Al qeada,and they were SO radical,SO fanatical and SO violent in their execution of religious zeal..that even al qeada had to distance themselves.

because,again...
religion is used as the justification to enact terrorism due to bad politics.
but the GOAL is always political.

you may remember that in the early 90's the twin towers were attacked and it was the first time americans heard of al qeada,and osama bil laden.

who made a statement back in 1993 and then reiterated in 2001 after 9/11 that the stated goal (one of them at least) was for the removal of ALL american military presence in saudi arabia (there was more,but it mostly dealt with american military presence in the middle east).

but where did this osama dude come from?
why was he so pissed at america?
just what was this dudes deal?

turns out he was already on the road to radicalization during the 80's.coming from an extremely wealthy saudi arabian family but had become extremely religious,and he saw western interventionism as a plague,and western culture as a disease.

he left the comforts of his extremely wealthy family to fight against this western incursion into his religious homeland.he traveled to afghanistan to join the mujahideen to combat the russians,who were actually fighting the americans in a proxy war.and WE trained osama.WE armed him and trained him in the tactics of warfare to,behind the scenes,slowly drain russia of resources in our 50 year long cold war.

how's that for irony.

osama was not,as american media like to paint the picture "anti-democratic or anti-freedom".he saw the culture of consumerism,greed and sexual liberation as an affront to his religious understandings.

this attitude can be directly linked to sayyid qtib from egypt.who visited the united states as an exchange student in 1954.now he wasnt radicalized yet,but when he returned to egypt he didnt recognize his own country.

he saw coco cola signs everywhere,and women wearing shorts skirts,and jukeboxs playing that devils music "rock and roll".

he feared for his country,his neighbors,his community.
just like a southern baptist fears for your soul,sayyid feared for the soul of his country and that this new "westernization" was a direct threat to the tenants laid down by islam.

so he began to speak out.
he began to hold rallies challenging the leadership to turn away from this evil,and people started to take notice,and some people agreed.

change does not come easy for some people,and this is especially true for those who hold strong religious ideologies.
(insert religion here) tends to be extremely traditional.

so sayyid started to gain popularity for his challenge if this new "westernization",and this did not go un-noticed by the egyptian leadership,who at that time WANTED western companies to invest in egypt.(that whole political landscape is totally different now,but back then egypt was fairly liberal,and moderately secular).

so instead of allowing sayyid to speak his mind.
they threw him in prison.
for 4 years.
in solitary.

well,he wasn't radicalized when he went IN to prison,but when he came OUT he sure was.

and to shorten this story,sayyid was the first founder of the muslim brotherhood,whose later incarnation broke off to form?

can you guess?
i bet you can!
al qeade

@Fairbs ,@newtboy and @Asmo have all laid out points why radicalization happens,and the conditions that can enflame and amplify that radicalization.

so i wont repeat what they have already said.

but let us take dearborn michigan as an example.
the largest muslim community in america.
how many terrorists come from dearborn?
how many radicals reside there?
how many mosque preach intolerance and "death to america"?
how many imams quietly sanction fatwas from the local IHOP against american imperialistic pigs?

none.

becuase if you live in stable community,with a functioning government,and you are able to find work and support your family,and your kids can get an education.

the chances of you become radicalized is pretty much:zippo.

the specific religion has NOTHING to do with terrorism.
religion is simply the means in which the justifications to enact violent atrocities is born.

it's the politics stupid.

you could do a thought experiment and flip the religions around,but keep the same political parameters and do you know WHAT we find?

that the terrorists would be CHRISTIAN terrorists.

or do i really need to go all the way back to the fucking dark ages to make my point?

it's
the
politics
stupid.

Terrorists are usually not from countries that America or even previously the Soviets have been bombing the shit out of.

ISIS themselves, in their own magazine (Dabiq) go out of their way to explain that they are not motivated by the xenophobia or the US fighting wars in their countries. They make specifically state that their motivation is simply because you aren't muslim. You can go an read it for yourself. They are self confessed fanatics that need to kill you to go to heaven.

The countries with one of the most intolerant cultures, are some of the best educated and wealthiest people on the planet. Countries such as UAE and Saudi Arabia. These countries are best buds with the west, and yet they still jail women when they are raped (not the rapist), and they stone and crucify protesters asking for human rights. These are the actual laws, not a few extremists, or terrorists, it's the law of the country. They are intolerant and oppressive by law, thanks to their theocratic ruling system.

To sum up the above, it's not an educational issue, it's not a poverty issues, it's not a revenge issue. It's culture, attitudes, and religion.

Dr. Greger confesses https://youtu.be/nK_I7z7ZELk

You mean he broke down when one minute he was excited about his awesome job and the next thousands of people were screaming at him for no reason.

He's not history's first innocent victim to be pressured into making a false confession. I hope you're proud of the side you've chosen.

It doesn't work like that. What you end up with is something akin to Australia's gun laws, which 'technically' still allow certain people to own guns, realistically most won't or can't

Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), circuit loaded firearms. shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles including semi automatic, and paintball gun. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm. [AKA, you have to prove you have a reason to own these weapons. Newsflash, the majority of police will automatically deny you. Oh yeah, for a PAINTBALL gun as well.]

Category B: Centrefire rifles including bolt action, pump action, circuit loaded, and lever action (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. [Same as Cat A, must have a 'genuine reason' to own one, be registered, have a fee, ton of other limitations, so basically hard to own]

Category C: Pump-action or self-loading shotguns having a magazine capacity of 5 or fewer rounds and semi automatic rimfire rifles. [Only Primary producers, farm workers, firearm dealers, firearm safety officers, collectors and clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.]

Category D: Self-loading centrefire rifles, pump-action or self-loading shotguns have a magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds. [Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies, occupational shooters and primary producers in some states. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.]

Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. [This class is available to target shooters and certain security guards whose job requires possession of a firearm. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of 6 months using club handguns, after which they may apply for a permit. A minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun and be a paid-up member of an approved pistol club. Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 sig, handguns that meet the IPSC rules, larger calibres such as .45 were approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests in Australia in 2014. Barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols; magazines are restricted to 10 rounds.]

Category R/E: Restricted weapons, such as machine guns, rocket launchers, full automatic self loading rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, howitzers and other artillery weapons [Obviously this class is right out...]

You can own some muzzleloading weapons without restrictions, although percussion cap pistols are restricted. In addition to these minor rules, all guns must be secured in a safe or other similar location, all must be fully registered so that the government knows the location of every single weapon/owner, and you can't sell them to another person, only to a dealer or the law to be destroyed.

After a few years of de-fanging and getting the citizens used to not having weapons, the Australian government and law enforcement routinely quietly hold gun buybacks to persuade more people to give up their weapons. They also do amnesty turn ins now and then.

So, that is the AMAZING suite of laws Australia put in place to stop mass shootings. Forgive me if, when combined, those type of laws would basically neuter the 2nd amendment. We've already neutered the 1st with 'hate speech' and the ability to sue over getting your feelings hurt. The 4th has been steadily under attack, because GOOD citizens shouldn't mind if the government rummages through everything you own or do. We haven't messed with the 5th amendment too much, so we could look at that next, maybe allow torture of everyone for confessions.

I'm getting tired of listing points, so let me just say this. I am incredibly sorry that people died, they shouldn't have and it is an utter shame. However, we are already fighting on a daily basis to keep a facsimile of the rights that were fought for when we built this country. Watering them down further only helps our government tighten the bonds of enslavement upon us. I can't agree with that.

When you veer into talking about changing the Geneva Conventions I think your argument loses logic. Without getting into whether military action is actually justified in the first place, maybe it's worth admitting that there are some thing the US military simply can't do and therefore shouldn't try to?

To suggest that the US should forego international norms to achieve its goals feels like it's channeling the neo-conservative myth of the US as this omnipotent superpower that it never was, and certainly isn't now. What evidence is there that acting like the terrorists (which once you give up international norms you will eventually get to) would actually help achieve its objectives in the first place?

The Bush administration basically took that approach with torture (the "well they did it to us!" approach). When the news of secret rendition, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo broke (as it inevitably would), we know that almost certainly recruited a whole bunch of new terrorists. Meanwhile torture confessions led to a whole bunch of wild goose hunts.

Civilian resistance has been around since the dawn of armies invading foreign lands. International norms geared around state v. state warfare don't really address them, not because they didn't envisage them but because occupying and pacifying foreigners was never a good idea in the first place. Drone strikes, surgical strikes on the likes of Bin Laden should be a rare exception but once you start 'normalizing' them, and giving occupying soldiers wider latitude with civilians that's when you start getting into serious trouble.

I just translated the lyrics. Damn, I forgot how difficult translating poetry can be. It took me quite some time. I tried to translate it as closely to the German meaning as possible, while still upholding or at least emulating some aspects of the poetic style of the original.

"Spring Greeting

1. (intro)
One beautiful spring day
A spring greeting – a little flower
Lay dying by the wayside

The poor thing had been plucked
Its existence doomed – Thrown away
To feed Death alone

2.
As I bowed down
To eye this misery
That bespoke brutal workings
Suggesting no remorse
A word escaped my throat
– Murder!

For this flower, so fragile
Was appallingly, purposely plucked
By the wayside, I assume
In a rush of ecstasy, absent-mindedly,
Someone bowed down
And bemused, elated, blushed,
In spring rapture, deeply delighted,
Discovered, clutched and killed it

Chorus:
And I asked myself, who seeks,
Against all grace and goodness,
To take such beauty's life
Executed, slaughtered
So disempowered, off-handedly
This peaceful blossom
So discarded and despised
Oh forbid

3.
The fool, he was so moved
That he had no doubt
His mind was captivated
By its splendor, which he abducted
And unscrupulously corrupted
As he took it – gave himself to it
Only then he became aware - it was dying

And suddenly the realization
Flashed through his mind and all too honestly
Comprehension became confession
Into his heart, painfully,
His misdeed crept, all too gravely

Chorus:
And he asked himself, who seeks,
Against all grace and goodness,
To take such beauty's life
Executed, slaughtered
So disempowered, off-handedly
This peaceful blossom
So discarded and despised
Oh forbid

4. (Bridge)
Shocked by his fallibility
He threw the beauty into the sand
Irritated by his misdeed
He retreated from his disgrace
‘Though he had desired the little flower,
Loved, adored, admired it,
He had not respected it
And this splendor by the wayside
Is now concluded and passed

Chorus:
And he asked himself, who seeks,
Against all grace and goodness,
To take such beauty's life
Executed, slaughtered
So disempowered, off-handedly
This peaceful blossom
So discarded and despised
Oh forbid

And he asked himself, who seeks,
Against all grace and goodness,
To take such beauty's life
Executed, slaughtered
So disempowered, off-handedly
This peaceful blossom
So discarded and despised
Man forbid

5. (outro)
One beautiful spring day
A spring greeting – a little flower
Lay dying by the wayside

Bereaved of the beautiful springtime
Of existence – doomed – of lust itself
A victim of vain humanity

It was me. It was me. I'm sorry.
It was me. It was me. Now I'm sorry."

I've got a confession to make, I voted for Nader in 2000. Gore seemed to be moving more towards the center, and I thought helping a 3rd party gain momentum was more important than choosing the lesser evil.

I was so wrong. After the horrors of the Bush years I don't have any doubt about how destructive an ill-qualified president can be. My only defense is that I live in the reddest state in the nation, and my vote didn't count anyway. But if I had lived in Florida that decision would have haunted me.

Your video, iraq confessions from inside the bush administration, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Don't drink and steal...and then wander around the area you stole the bike from, only to be spotted by local news camera guy who gets you to blurt out your guilty confession.

Yep and where did that ruling come from? The supreme court, i.e. not politicians who pander to their idiot homophobic base.

I'm fine with someone picking this as a battle. As I said, it might come down to one brave couple "confessing" and forcing the law to be tested in court.

But sometimes, when you're fixing the ignition, you have to let the worn out shocks slide. Yeah, you need to sort that shit out, but it's not the job you're working on right now.

@newtboy, it's not that they shouldn't be doing anything about the water situation; obviously, they should.

But just because problem 1 (water) is worse doesn't mean you can't deal with problem 2 (animal abuse).

Think about it this way: if Jones HAD proposed removing the anti-sodomy laws as part of this legislation, the state senate would have wasted even more time having a completely pointless debate about it. Instead, he chose the pragmatic route of ignoring something that isn't and hasn't been a problem* to use his limited legislating time to pass a useful law around animal abuse.

Also, IANAL, but from what I've read on the topic, one bad section does not invalidate an entire bill.

It saddens me greatly that in 2016 in a developed country, there's even a debate on an anti-sodomy law, and quite frankly, anyone who supports one is a terrible person and should get the fuck out of politics (and preferably life) at the earliest opportunity.

But that's the US political climate.

* when was the last time anyone was actually prosecuted under this law? Honestly, someone should confess to sodomy, get prosecuted and have the law struck down in court.

My mother makes fairy houses.

End confession.

She travels a lot to national parks and when she stops on a trail, she makes a hidden fairy house. Silly, of course. But what I've always found interesting about what she does is the idea of hidden, impermanent art that will probably never be seen. But if one person ever discovers one of her creations...the transcendent moment. That's beautiful to me. If she took a picture it would diminish what she does.

I'd appreciate this snow art more if there were no video. If it were unclaimed. Well, I'd appreciate the IDEA of this art, because I'd likely never actually know about it. And that's a kind of beauty.

Yeah, I'd love to hear him on Trump and Cruz...I think he'd be all about Sanders. He blasted the Tea Party, so we can be fairly sure he'd be blasting the leaders of the current field. He'd probably admire that Trump is at least honest enough to say what he wants without a filter, but also reflect how dangerous it is that his views are so accepted among a scary percentage of Americans. How if Trump, or even Cruz, get's elected, it would isolate the US from our allies. They are still upset about Bush, and going that far to the right would endanger our relationships with all of them, save perhaps Israel, which is all the Christian right care about anyhow. He'd be giving a Hitch Slap to the media for the way they are following the Trump circus just for ratings, and building up Clinton while largely ignoring Sanders. Of course the political right would use that people like Hitchens would support Sanders and reason enough to ignore and fear him. "That demonic Atheist supports Sanders, so that's what you get with a vote for Sanders. Satanism wrapped up in the disguise of Atheism... and we all know that every knee will bow and every tongue confess, and we know they honestly do believe, but are just mad at God about something and trying to turn others against him", or something along those lines.