Let's look at the scripture in a little more detail:

Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

This scripture is at the tail end of a conversation Jesus had with a young rich man. The young man had inquired of the Lord how he could have eternal life. The answer Jesus gave was simple, "sell your possesions and follow me." In the rest of the scripture we see that the only requirements for salvation is a confession of Jesus as Lord and a belief that He was raised from the dead. So, why did the Lord give the additional requirement to the rich young man of selling all of his possessions? We see why in the next verse:

Matthew 19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

This man, even knowing that Jesus could instruct him on how to attain eternal life, could not follow after the Lord because he loved his wealth more than God. This is what Jesus said in Matthew 6:24

"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

His riches were the stumbling block preventing him from following the Lord, and that is why the Lord dealt with it there. The Lord knew He was a slave to his wealth and could not bear to be parted from it, even at the expense of his eternal life. This is a reason why the Lord warned us in Matthew 16:26

For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?

Which is to say, that if someone laid all the wealth of the world at your feet, and you traded your soul for it, you would have made an unprofitable deal. The wealth of this world is perishing and will pass away, and we along with it, but those who do the will abide with Him forever. So, let's look on to what Jesus said to His disciples after the young rich man parted:

Matthew 19:23-26 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

You'll notice that Jesus only said it was impossible for men, but with God all things are possible. The problem with the young rich man was not his wealth but his heart condition before God. He wanted the gift more than he wanted the giver of the gift. When Jesus put his loyalties to the test, the true condition of his heart was exposed. There is nothing inherently bad about money, but there is something inherently bad about putting it before God. That is the sin of idolatry, and that is what Jesus is condemning, not money itself. Take Joseph of Arimethea for example:

Matthew 27:57-60 When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus.
He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him.

And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had cut in the rock. And he rolled a great stone to the entrance of the tomb and went away.

Joseph was a disciple of Jesus yet He did not require Joseph to sell all of his possessions. Indeed, if he had Joseph would not have been able to provide the tomb that Jesus was buried in, ultimately fulfilling the prophecy about Jesus in Isaiah 53:9.

So, to conclude, what God is most concerned about is the heart. If your love for your possesions is what is keeping you from the Lord, He may ultimately require you to sacrifice them. I think is especially difficult for the rich man to realize his need for salvation because he is so self-sufficient. He believes he is in control of his life because his money insulates him from many of the cares of this world. He does not realize that his very breath rests in the hands of the Lord. He may not confess, as Job did, that his riches are all blessings from on High, and at the disposal of the Almighty to do with them what He may.

Job 1:21 And he said, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD."

@enoch, I didn't see your response to me since you didn't "reply" to me, or "message me" ("@Trancecoach"), so I'm just seeing this now:

> you argue like someone who has found religion.

What is this, then, if not ad hominem? What has religion got to do with economics in this context? I'm willing to change my mind, if you can show me the flaws in my argument.

> and its not just you that never wants to address the dark side of capitalism.

So, please tell me what didn't get 'addressed?' Did I not respond to every point in your post? Where are your replies to my reply?

> disciples of free market capitalism never want to talk about their deformed child
> locked in the upstairs bedroom.out of sight..out of mind.

Again, what wasn't addressed? Free market capitalists love to talk about free market capitalism. Ok. So are you stuck on this such that you're unable to read/respond to my response?

Seems to me that you're projecting, because while you say that my responses are like a 'sermon,' this portion of your post actually sounds like a sermon:

> every system has its flaws.
> both positive and negative.
> and no system is a rigid single dimension but rather varying layers of slight
> differences.
> this includes every political and economic system thought of or just living in the
> realm of dreams.
> it is through discussion with people we may disagree in which new ideas can breed
> and grow.
> this was my ultimate goal in talking with you.
> instead i get a sermon.
> hope has two daughters.
> anger and courage.
> anger at the way things are,and courage to change them.
> i havent had a beer in ten years.
> gonna go grab me a beer or two.
> what a silly,sad old man i have become.
> old men should stop dreaming.....

Let's not degrade the level of discourse to ad hominem or sob stories. If you need help, ask for help. But don't blame me if you relapse. We are all accountable for our own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.

> old men should stop dreaming

Dream all you want, but don't expect everyone else to take your dreams seriously just because you say so. (Why not address any of the points I made in my response?)

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the
average voter." ~ Winston Churchill

I'm at a loss as to what response I can give you that would 'appease' your sensibilities? As far as I could tell, all of your questions were addressed. But you ignored my reply, and went back to "no one wants to talk about it" or whatever. So, what can be said?

It seems like you don't really want to "debate" or "converse" or whatever. If I refute your arguments, then you interpret that as meaning that I don't want to talk about it. Did I get that right? That doesn't make much sense to me. If not, please explain what I am missing here.

Also, what does it matter if you are old or young, or a dreamer or not, in terms of getting to the truth about socialism and capitalism?

> but you are blinded by dogma.

If so, why not show me what part of my argument is dogmatic or not epistemologically sound?
For example, what specifically about the right to and/or preference for non-aggression is 'dogmatic?' I don't like being bullied, so does that make me dogmatic? What about the impossibility of economic calculation under any sort of socialism is 'dogmatic?' And how so?

If someone doesn't understand calculus, they might call it 'dogma.' But if you understand it, then you can look at the equations and see for yourself if they make mathematical sense (or not). Was Galileo's contention that the Earth orbits the Sun dogmatic? What about the assertion that the Sun orbits the Earth, was that dogmatic? What's the difference?

> it is through discussion with people we may disagree in which new ideas can breed
> and grow. this was my ultimate goal in talking with you.

This is all very nice, but did you bother to find out what my 'ultimate goal' in talking to you was? Or is it all about yours?

Some-but-not-all people get upset when you point out how their beliefs do not correspond to the facts. Socrates was sentenced to commit suicide and Galileo died under house arrest.

I won't say whether or not this is true, or applies in this instance.

> every system has its flaws. both positive and negative. and no system is a rigid
> single dimension but rather varying layers of slight differences. this includes every
> political and economic system thought of or just living in the realm of dreams.

This, in itself is a dogmatic statement.

Look, man. I like you. I appreciate your comments, your earnestness, and willingness to engage our discourse. I also appreciate your respect and appreciation (although I can't say I'm sure how I've earned or deserved it). You've apologized for what seems to me to be ad hominem and I appreciate and accept your apology. I, too, apologize if you seem that I've been terse or avoidant in authentic engagement in dialogue with you. But in keeping with the points and arguments themselves, I think we'll both be much better off in terms of learning and growing and avoiding going off-track or off-topic into commentary about the messenger as opposed to the message.

sighs..nevermind man.
the fact that you thought i was throwing ad-homs at ya or calling you names is all i need to know.

you argue like someone who has found religion.
the vernacular is different but the style is the same.
hence my light hearted evangelical reference.
sorry you thought that was a dig at you.
already told ya i respected and admired you.

discussions to me are always about understanding.i learned a ton from you and truly appreciate the time.

but you didnt convert me.

and its not just you that never wants to address the dark side of capitalism.
disciples of free market capitalism never want to talk about their deformed child locked in the upstairs bedroom.out of sight..out of mind.

every system has its flaws.
both positive and negative.
and no system is a rigid single dimension but rather varying layers of slight differences.
this includes every political and economic system thought of or just living in the realm of dreams.

it is through discussion with people we may disagree in which new ideas can breed and grow.
this was my ultimate goal in talking with you.
instead i get a sermon.

hope has two daughters.
anger and courage.
anger at the way things are,and courage to change them.

i foolishly believed that you and i could have a conversation that would ignite the spark of ideas.
that through discussion and debate something new and exciting could be born.
capitalism has its problems.
as does socialism.
we need something better.

but you are blinded by dogma.
and i am just an old fool.
a silly old dreamer who really should have known better.

i sincerely apologize that you felt i was calling you names.

i havent had a beer in ten years.
gonna go grab me a beer or two.
what a silly,sad old man i have become.
old men should stop dreaming.....

There are no absolute logical principles <---- including that one. This is simply another way of describing the problem of induction and under determination. Like so many philosophical arguments you have attacked my position based upon the language it was described in and not due to its underlying thought process. This has resulted in a fallacy. Language merely conveys knowledge, it does not in an of itself contain it (and excellent example incidentally of what I was talking about).

Your argument eats itself. If there aren't any absolute laws of logic (including that one), then there are no rules period, and thus no logic. If there is no such thing as logic then I could say "The cucumber faints west in the umbrage" and it would be an entirely valid response to anything you say. Yet you continue to make absolute statements like:

"All principles (save the observation "thinking exists") can only ever derived by induction."

"This is the case because one can never know for certain if any or all of ones experiences are fabrications"

"you can't ever be certain about any judgement one makes about the universe or anything in it because one cannot observe an exhaustive perspective"

The sea cucumber faints west in the umbrage, my friend.

All principles (save the observation "thinking exists") can only ever derived by induction. This is the case because one can never know for certain if any or all of ones experiences are fabrications, and furthermore that they never encompass all possible variables/possibilities. To put it another way, you can't ever be certain about any judgement one makes about the universe or anything in it because one cannot observe an exhaustive perspective (i.e. all of time and space for the thing in question). Thus there may always exist an example that could falsify your assumption. e.g. if I inducted that all swans are white because I had only ever seen white swans I would ultimately be incorrect as black swans can be observed to exist. Unless you can verify the entirety of existence across time there might always exist and experience/example to falsify any objective assertion. (you could be a brain in a jar, you can't prove 100% that your not)

No, I can't 100 percent prove I am not actually a circus peanut dreaming I'm a man, but it doesn't matter what I can prove to you. What matters is what is true. You have absolute freedom to live in total denial of reality if you want to, but reality isn't what we dictate it is. Just because you have no way of figuring it out doesn't mean no one does. The one who does have it figured out is God, because He created it. Because He is God He can make us absolutely certain of who He is and what He wants from us, transcending all physical or mental rationale.

^ Pardon me? Did you even read what I wrote by way of explanation for that? What part of "everything is permitted" even remotely precludes me (or anyone) from anything, let alone arguing against Christianity?!?!?

If everything is permitted then it is equally valid not to permit, which means you have no argument. Your way isn't better than any other way according to your logic so all that you can argue is that you prefer it.

What I felt I'd explained fairly clearly was the idea that the only demonstrable moral authority was yourself, or to put it another way that there are no moral authorities to be found anywhere else but within peoples minds.
Even if God himself speaks to you directly, that is an experience reducible only to the mind because ALL EXPERIENCES WITHIN HUMAN CONCEPTION OCCUR IN or at best VIA THE MIND!

I can't prove God exists to you, but He can. God isn't hiding from you; He has been knocking on your door your entire life. It's your choice whether you want to open the door, but you are going to meet Him one day regardless of what you choose.

Nothing has ever happened to any human being anywhere that was not experienced entirely in the mind (notice I didn't say "brain" ). When you see a chair you don't see the photons of light hitting your retina, you see something your mind made up to be representative (at best) of whatever phenomenon your eyes detected.

With that in mind (<- mind lol), "everything is permitted". The universe will continue on, unmoved by our moralities (or lack of). Only other humans will cry or rejoice at your actions and only within the sovereignty of your own mind will you find an irrefutable and absolute moral judge...

I was created before I had a mind. The Universe has a beginning, it was created, and the Creator is the judge.

Apart from all the same major dates for festivals and holy days (25th dec etc.),

The Catholics borrowed those from the Pagans..you won't find those in the bible.

the entire symbology of dieing on a cross for three days then being resurrected, the "last supper" with 12 disciples, 3 wise men from the east bearing gifts. etc. etc.

Sources?

I'd have more time for the Christian counter argument that the Mithraists stole this stuff from them if the same themes, dates and symoblogy didn't pop up in ancient cultures going back a few 1000 years over and over and over. The list of Messianic figures with the above characteristics in western folklore & myth is so long its almost a joke! & naturally is no co-incidence as they are describing the movement of the heavens (specifically the sun) by way of allegory. Speaking of which..

Let's see some sources..

But then the Catholic Church did it level best to suppress and destroy any trace of Gnosticism through the ages so its no surprise to me that you're not entirely familiar with it. (most people haven't even heard of it and those that do tend to be under the misapprehension that its a Christian thing (again understandable under the circumstances))

I know exactly what it is and I am very familar with it.

I'll come with you a little on that one. Before Rex Mundi (Jehova) showed up to fk everything up for them the Kabbalistic (and essentially Pagan) Jews possessed great wisdom and insight. Naturally not all of this was lost! (though after Solomon passed it would appear a regrettably large amount was)

Abraham is the father of the Jewish people and he worshiped the LORD.

I'm not sure I even want to grace that with a response. How could you possibly know what came from the mouth of God to a man 2000 years ago? If you say "because it says in the bible" please don't expect a sensible reply (I'm happy to fight non-sense with none-sense)

Because I know Him personally and His Spirit lives within me.

^This one amused be greatly. I would say Buddhism & Zoroastranism were clearly superior for exactly that reason but that's not what I think you were alluding to? I assume you were suggesting that certain parts of the whole Jesus shebang could only have come from Jesus/God/Holy spirit because he made himself the centre of attention?

To be a Christian is to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Therefore there is no Christianity without Him. He is the only way to know God:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

He wasn't pointing to Himself, He was pointing to God.

This is why I make a very distinct separation between the "Jesus" and the "Christ". Christ (or anointed one) goes back at least to Egypt. Horus is clearly "Christ" by basically any sensible measure I can think of, and by "Christ" I mean the "Sun of God" i.e. the freaking Sun.

This also forms the basis for an "as above so below" parable/allegory for the spiritual journey to enlightenment. You can find your way to heaven and God via the "Sun of God's" wisdom. No Miracle performing hippie Jew's were required before and I fail to see how sprouting the same fundamental idea just with a figurehead for a disenfranchised Jewish noble family anchored to everything helps?

You do realize that the word son and the word sun, in hebrew or in egyptian, aren't even remotely similar don't you? The word Christ does mean the anointed one, that is what the Messiah is. Jesus *is* the Christ. In regards to Horus being Christ, and a lot of other things you said, please take a look at this:

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/#horus

Are there some pearl's of Jesus's wisdom I missed? Thus far I have yet to come across anything that didn't strike me as either a rewording of things wise men had preached for 1000's of years previously, or a power play by an unscrupulous or deluded individual.

Read the gospel of John and pray to God and ask Him to help you understand it.

I happen to know its hotly contested even to this day but lets for the sake of this just take it as a given. When I said "at best a fabrication" it was because I consider the historical figure to be an impostor and a fraud. If anyone was a "true" messiah then John the Baptist and moreover Simon Magus are far better contenders but then that's a colossal can of worms I'm not sure I can be bothered to open at the moment.

John the baptist said he wasn't the Messiah and Simon was outdone by Philip.

I'll just say in summary that I am of the opinion that Mr. Ben Yosef and his crew were plotting to return the house of David to power but largely failed in the end as the Roman establishment usurped most of the legacy they tried to create (though not entirely).

The missing part of this theory is the explanation for the empty tomb.

Either way they worshiped and championed a being (Psychological archetype) which I feel I have little choice but to call Satan i.e. the God of Abraham. This alone is a pretty major indictment for me and any historic figure that puts said "being" at the center of their belief system will garner my suspicion.

How can the God that appeared to Abraham be anything but malevolent if the accounts in the Torah and Quran are accurate?

The quran isn't accurate, but if you read the Old Testament without humanistic glasses on, you'll find it was the humans who were malevolent and God was who long suffering with them.

@ shinyblurry

This had already turned into an essay and I didn't want to take up even more room by quoting you verbatim so I've tried to break it down to save space.



1. "Except that?"

There are no absolute logical principles <---- including that one.
This is simply another way of describing the problem of induction and under determination. Like so many philosophical arguments you have attacked my position based upon the language it was described in and not due to its underlying thought process. This has resulted in a fallacy. Language merely conveys knowledge, it does not in an of itself contain it (and excellent example incidentally of what I was talking about).

2. "Is that absolutely true?"

All principles (save the observation "thinking exists") can only ever derived by induction. This is the case because one can never know for certain if any or all of ones experiences are fabrications, and furthermore that they never encompass all possible variables/possibilities. To put it another way, you can't ever be certain about any judgement one makes about the universe or anything in it because one cannot observe an exhaustive perspective (i.e. all of time and space for the thing in question). Thus there may always exist an example that could falsify your assumption. e.g. if I inducted that all swans are white because I had only ever seen white swans I would ultimately be incorrect as black swans can be observed to exist. Unless you can verify the entirety of existence across time there might always exist and experience/example to falsify any objective assertion. (you could be a brain in a jar, you can't prove 100% that your not)


3. "Including not permitting..which means you have no further argument against Christianity."

^ Pardon me? Did you even read what I wrote by way of explanation for that? What part of "everything is permitted" even remotely precludes me (or anyone) from anything, let alone arguing against Christianity?!?!?

What I felt I'd explained fairly clearly was the idea that the only demonstrable moral authority was yourself, or to put it another way that there are no moral authorities to be found anywhere else but within peoples minds.
Even if God himself speaks to you directly, that is an experience reducible only to the mind because ALL EXPERIENCES WITHIN HUMAN CONCEPTION OCCUR IN or at best VIA THE MIND!

Nothing has ever happened to any human being anywhere that was not experienced entirely in the mind (notice I didn't say "brain" ). When you see a chair you don't see the photons of light hitting your retina, you see something your mind made up to be representative (at best) of whatever phenomenon your eyes detected.

With that in mind (<- mind lol), "everything is permitted". The universe will continue on, unmoved by our moralities (or lack of). Only other humans will cry or rejoice at your actions and only within the sovereignty of your own mind will you find an irrefutable and absolute moral judge...

As for the other bits

A. "The earliest records of Mithraism bear no similarity to Christianity at all....."

Apart from all the same major dates for festivals and holy days (25th dec etc.), the entire symbology of dieing on a cross for three days then being resurrected, the "last supper" with 12 disciples, 3 wise men from the east bearing gifts. etc. etc.

I'd have more time for the Christian counter argument that the Mithraists stole this stuff from them if the same themes, dates and symoblogy didn't pop up in ancient cultures going back a few 1000 years over and over and over. The list of Messianic figures with the above characteristics in western folklore & myth is so long its almost a joke! & naturally is no co-incidence as they are describing the movement of the heavens (specifically the sun) by way of allegory. Speaking of which............

Pagan & Gnostic traditions are deeply intertwined to the point where one could consider many examples to be one and the same. Mithraism would be one such example. Pagan just means many Gods/worship of nature & archetypes in the human psyche. Mithraism fulfils this definition but it also fulfils the Gnostic one i.e. it teaches that one finds god of and within oneself, not as an external force, or indeed a force which is separate from oneself.

But then the Catholic Church did it level best to suppress and destroy any trace of Gnosticism through the ages so its no surprise to me that you're not entirely familiar with it. (most people haven't even heard of it and those that do tend to be under the misapprehension that its a Christian thing (again understandable under the circumstances))


B. "Actually, they came from a progressive revelation of Judiasm which preceeded all of that."

I'll come with you a little on that one. Before Rex Mundi (Jehova) showed up to fk everything up for them the Kabbalistic (and essentially Pagan) Jews possessed great wisdom and insight. Naturally not all of this was lost! (though after Solomon passed it would appear a regrettably large amount was)


C. "What Jesus did not teach that came from Judiasm was wholly His and entirely unique, and they came from the mouth of God Himself."


I'm not sure I even want to grace that with a response. How could you possibly know what came from the mouth of God to a man 2000 years ago? If you say "because it says in the bible" please don't expect a sensible reply (I'm happy to fight non-sense with none-sense)


D. "The difference is Jesus Himself. You could take buddha out of buddhism, or zoroaster out of zoroastrianism and you would still have something. Without Jesus there is no Christianity."

^This one amused be greatly. I would say Buddhism & Zoroastranism were clearly superior for exactly that reason but that's not what I think you were alluding to? I assume you were suggesting that certain parts of the whole Jesus shebang could only have come from Jesus/God/Holy spirit because he made himself the centre of attention?
This is why I make a very distinct separation between the "Jesus" and the "Christ". Christ (or anointed one) goes back at least to Egypt. Horus is clearly "Christ" by basically any sensible measure I can think of, and by "Christ" I mean the "Sun of God" i.e. the freaking Sun.
This also forms the basis for an "as above so below" parable/allegory for the spiritual journey to enlightenment. You can find your way to heaven and God via the "Sun of God's" wisdom. No Miracle performing hippie Jew's were required before and I fail to see how sprouting the same fundamental idea just with a figurehead for a disenfranchised Jewish noble family anchored to everything helps?

Are there some pearl's of Jesus's wisdom I missed? Thus far I have yet to come across anything that didn't strike me as either a rewording of things wise men had preached for 1000's of years previously, or a power play by an unscrupulous or deluded individual.


E. "The Jesus myth theory isn't taken seriously by even skeptical bible scholars. There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than for Alexander the Great."

I happen to know its hotly contested even to this day but lets for the sake of this just take it as a given. When I said "at best a fabrication" it was because I consider the historical figure to be an impostor and a fraud. If anyone was a "true" messiah then John the Baptist and moreover Simon Magus are far better contenders but then that's a colossal can of worms I'm not sure I can be bothered to open at the moment. I'll just say in summary that I am of the opinion that Mr. Ben Yosef and his crew were plotting to return the house of David to power but largely failed in the end as the Roman establishment usurped most of the legacy they tried to create (though not entirely).
Either way they worshiped and championed a being (Psychological archetype) which I feel I have little choice but to call Satan i.e. the God of Abraham. This alone is a pretty major indictment for me and any historic figure that puts said "being" at the center of their belief system will garner my suspicion.

How can the God that appeared to Abraham be anything but malevolent if the accounts in the Torah and Quran are accurate?

(I hope that made sense towards the end, getting very late & tired here...)

Rand is proof that Republicans just really are incapable of learning from their mistakes.

McCain/Palin didn't win. Let's go further Right!!

The Robot and the Ayn Rand disciple didn't win, Let's go even further Right.

Republicans have moved the goalposts countless times that they have lost all perspective and are completely out of touch with the american public.. In reality, Obama is a moderate conservative but to the right, he's a flaming socialist muslim dictator.

The right is its own worst enemy. The party of Lincoln?? That hasn't been true for a long fucking time.

Rand was grandstanding for publicity. period. his filibuster was a huge strawman

i have transcribed what i could from the FreeStyle portion of the night:

-----------------
when im walkin down (___ and ___) // telegraph?
____ these niggas doin me

then i walk up in the oracle
hear pussy niggas booin me

but when im in the back they love me like an israeli
its like niggas be jewin me

and yo girl got my penis in her mouth
like she bubble gum chewin me

im sick with it motherfucka
like E40
I got the flu in me

I get new money
from new dummies
its like i got new in me

and these niggas got the nerve to boo the savior
boo christ
the son of god
it dont really matter
they can boo me twice
im twice as hard

you might as well give me 20 nigga
thats how much the album costs
fuck boy
but i bet if you can walk to your car
i can show your bitch a dick she'll enjoy

so why dont you take your pussy ass on over there nigga
before i fuckin catch ya
or you can pull your bank out and ill match ya

but you aint gonna do shit but get punched in the face
old san francisco 49er ass faggot ass nigga
get outta here you not a lion in this race

im gonna freestyle these niggas
mestyle these niggas
im katt williams the gangsta
ill g style these niggas

i dont need no music
i can do it
A-capulco

and if a nigga say fuck me
i hit em with a fuck you too

i dont give a fuck

i brought john witherspoon
and i got three bad bitches
waitin at the waterfront
at my hotel room

so if you dont like me
and you think im stuntin
come get yo pussy ass whooped
outside by a statue of jack london

or... or

i can find one of them bitches
that i rescued from the track
and have her slice yo pussy ass neck
and leave you on the railroad track

it dont really matter to me
i dont give a fuck

i roll with G O D and the nation
if you dont like me
catch me eatin a cherry pie
cause its seasonal at nations

fuck these niggas
im the boss
i got so much sauce
im heavier than ross

i dont give a fuck
ask yo bitch
i bet she know me
i bet that bitch
can suck my dick outside of yoshis

huh... yea
fuck what these niggas talkin bout
no no, no no, i dont wanna hear it
if you wanna tell me,
catch me while im walkin like barry

naw naw naw naw
i know
you paid for a some laughs
ha ha ha ha ha
get on your cell phone
tell em meet you at telegraph

get it? cell phone telegraph.. its the same thing..anyway

im too good
white people dont like me
im too hood
bitches love me
im so wood..yea
lesbians love me
eat pussy so good

hey..dont worry..dont worry
be happy
they said they didnt like my hair when its permed
now they dont like it when its nappy

no, but it was flat in pimp chronicles,
they was talkin shit
now the shit look like the joker and riddler
and its only loved by your bitch

its so sad
so sad
they put in me in cuffs
and they so mad
so mad

but i swear, i dont give a fuck about a penis
cause katt williams is from mars, same as women
fuck penis

love yall forever
always will
i dont give a fuck who dont like me
thats what make me real

im not trying to be something
this is all im is

if you dont be-lask me
ask the niggas i fuck with
the bitches i fuck
and my motherfuckin kids

i done done seven specials
richard pryor only did two
eddie murphy did two
which is bigger seven or two?
same for me
same for you
huh huh huh huh huh


george carlin died before
katt williams did fo'
and then did three mo

katt williams live
its pimpin pimpin
pimp chronicles

got my mother fuckin dick in your bitches tonsils
hahahaha ha
i look like im young
im 43 nigga
get fucked by a fossil

the bitches that follow me are not ho's
they're my mother fuckin apostles
they're my disciples
i tell that bitch straight to the cross
ill knife ya

go to jail for a nigga my bitch
ill write ya

Once you spend 10 or so more years into your take on Jesus and his trip downstairs, you may relax into the seasoned believer's shoes, who take to heart Jesus' words in Mathew Chapter 6, verse 6, where the master of life and death implores, "But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

Or here, when he encourages his disciples on their proselytizing quest for more guests at the never-ending worship fest and ice cream social in the sky..."Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." -Matthew 7:6

Perhaps this isn't the best place to let your light so shine before men, eh??...Unless of course you have a knack for racking-up crowns online on other rabid-liberal-pseudo-intellectual circle-jerk web forums??

I would beg to differ on this sentiment. We have little knowledge of where we come from. Even Francis Crick, one of the founders of DNA suggested that we are on Earth through panspermia from another sentient race.

Then you have to ask who created them, and who created the creators, and so on. It becomes a chain of causality. You then have two options. Either, you have to believe that something came from nothing, or, there is an eternal first cause of everything that exists. I think something coming from nothing is impossible, so an eternal first cause is the only option left. If you agree, then we'll call that God.

Who knows? The Christian perception of god in reality is quite possibly unfathomably simple, that is to say that which is the creation of all existence. Listen, I want the truth just as much as you do, that is why I gone far out to experience mystical experiences that only prove to me that whatever this is, is far more complex and loving.

It's good to hear that you are pursuing the truth. That is something I greatly respect. My question to you is, if the truth is Jesus Christ, as He claims (I am the way, the *truth* and the life), would you turn your life over to Him?

The Christian conception of God is actually very complex in some ways, and simple in others. Complex, when you consider the Holy Trinity and the incarnation of Christ. Simple, when you consider the Fathers love for His children the sacrificial love of His Son. The theology also shares this dichotomy of depth and simplicity, and it is all knit together with sinews of love and unity into the mystical body of Christ. The Christian God is, like the Universe He created, both complex and simple.

I'm not sure what you mean by more loving. I'm going to need a definition and example of what you're talking about before I reply to that.

No one can prove Jesus was raised from the dead it is a phenomenon not widely occurring. I would never say that Jesus never existed but I think it is probable that Jesus existed in a much more humble way than what is described by his disciples. Therefore, I look at it as a book of tall tales. There is nothing wrong with that, I mean if you can accept it for what it really is... a book of Tall Tales.

Presumably, if Jesus is alive, He could prove it couldn't He?

Yes, I went to a Lutheran church every Sunday for eighteen years. Most of my parents community were involved with the church. They all know my feelings on the subject and over time I have seen their Christian foundations dissolve for better or worse. For me, it is undeniably a farce of divinity. I respect Christianity, probably without Christianity I would never had wanted to seek out the real, hard truths. Christianity spoke so much of honesty and truth. I adore those concepts and unfortunately Christianity does not hold a flame to what I now know.

You will find me very much in agreement with you when you say that dead religion is a farce of divinity. When it comes down to it, there are two types of Christians in this world. Those who have a religion, and those who have a relationship. Those who have a religion are those who follow the traditions of men, and believe that to follow God is to go to church, read the bible, and pray at the suitable times. Basically, if they follow their good and bad checklist well enough, some day they will make it to Heaven. Their faith is blind and based only on what they've read, but not what they've understood to be true from experience.

Those who have a relationship are those who have a personal, intimate, experiential relationship with the living God. They have the Holy Spirit living with them, who has supernaturally transformed them into new people. These people experience the presence of God in their daily lives, and are personally guided by God in everything they do. These people know the truth, experience it, and live it out every single day. It sounds to me that your experience had the character of the former and not the latter. I am not shocked at all that you left the church under those pretenses, and I would have too. It is a story I have heard many times in the past, that people who grew up with dead religion and never learned how to have a personal relationship with Christ, quickly abandoned the faith of their parents, because either they never really believed in the first place, or they had no foundation for their beliefs, and the world quickly converted them to its ways.

There is more to this story Shinyblurry, my spiritual quest started late, after I was free from the churches hold . I am not a liar, I have never purposefully stolen anything and I treat people with honesty and compassion. I may be very left leaning but I find myself to be much more ethical, non judgemental and compassionate than most

I appreciate that you're a relatively moral person. We as humans tend to judge ourselves based on a relative standard, based on how we line up to other people. Compared to rapists and pedophiles, we're both very upstanding citizens I am sure. Compared to Hitler, we are looking almost perfect. Yet, God doesn't judge on a sliding scale; He uses an absolute standard. Gods standard for good is moral perfection, and He considers anything short of that to be evil. That is why God is holy and we are not. So, for example, you say that you're not a liar, but if you've ever told even one lie then you are in fact a liar, as a liar is a person who has lied. If you've ever stolen *anything*, regardless of its value, you're a thief. If you've ever used Gods name in vain you are a blasphemer. Gods standards are even higher than this, though, in that He consider what you've thought in your heart. For example, if you've ever even looked at a woman with lust He considers you an adulterer at heart, and Jesus says if you've ever hated anyone you've murdered them in your heart. (full disclosure: I've done all of these things) So you can see that our relative standard doesn't cut it when it comes to what God considers good, and even one sin is too many. That's why Jesus died for our sins, because we cannot meet Gods holy standard on our own.

One night maybe ten years ago, for a few seconds, and then hours I thought God had contacted me and it was weirdest thing I have ever experienced. And it was real, I mean the experience. And so my quest began and I found a partial truth after many years of research...

Tell me more about your experience of God..why was it weird, and what partial truth did you find that seemed to confirm it?

and it only raises more questions on divinity, soul, morality, the mind, the universe. Thus is life. Keep asking questions. Keep thinking. Keep researching.

I respect your search for the truth, and I think it is a good thing. Scripture says, seek and you shall find. Ask and you shall be given. Knock, and the door will open. Do you believe that you have a soul?

The truth is out there, yet none of us know it yet. And I mean NO ONE.

I'll have to stop you here because you're making an absolute claim and this is self-contradictory. This is revealed by the question, "is it absolutely true that no one knows the truth?" The best you could say is that you don't know the truth, but you don't know what I know. How could you, if you don't know what the truth is?

Further, this ties into what we're discussing about the video. That there are only two routes to truth. Either you are omnipotent, or you get revelation from an omnipotent being. Since neither of us are omnipotent, there is only one possibility of either of us knowing the truth, which is an omnipotent being revealing it to us. I fully agree with you that outside of such revelation no one knows anything. But, if God gave me such revelation how would you know whether He did or not? You couldn't say no one knows the truth, because you don't know what God has or has not revealed. You only know what God has revealed to you, if anything.

Of the 6 prophesies written about dft, all but one has been fulfilled.

I am clearly the chosen one. Will you become one of my disciples @bobknight33?

(Oh look, I'm 6/6 now)

I know. Here's something to take your mind off that long tedious train ride!
In reply to this comment by Issykitty:
In reply to this comment by ctrlaltbleach:
*promote

Thanks for the promote, Radiohead disciple! I am N'Awlins bound!

i always find it interesting when people assume that i get my information from zeitgeist.as if the idea that i studied under a biblical scholar is something to not even be considered.

as for defending the sabbath as being sunday. might i suggest that when you use a souce *cough* wikipedia *cough* that you may wish to read the article in its entirety.

What I am assuming is that you (and the biblical scholar you studied under) are poorly researched, because the information you've provided here:

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen046.html

is nearly completely false.

If you disagree, then please provide pre new testament sources for some of the claims, such as:

Horus having 12 disciples

Horus being a child teacher

Horus being baptized at age 30

Horus walking on water

Horus being known as the way the truth the light lamb of God, etc

Horus being crucified, dead for three days and resurrected

I'll wait..

As far as the Sabbath, I never claimed it was on Sunday. I said Sunday is the Lords day, not the Sabbath.

shiny.
you know i have no interest in changing how you believe or perceive the world around you.
Your faith is your own but please put a tad bit more time into rebuttals when concerning my posts.

If you actually provided a cohesive argument that was sourced, then I would have put more time into it. As it stands, all you did was link to a bunch of unsubstantiated claims.

apply to boston university and get your degree.i hear their theology courses are top notch.
ooooor continue to play whack a mole with every post,comment or inference that challenges your world view based on limited religious and biblical understandings.

I've done the same research you have and come to different conclusions. I used to have some of the same beliefs that you do, remember? I know quite a bit about what you believe and why you believe it. The Lord has shown me these arguments to be foolishness. They are predicated on very poor (or made up) evidence which has been in every case heavily exaggerated. Bible skeptics are willing to believe anything that is contrary to the bible being accurate, and never apply the same level of skepticism to those arguments.

i am sorry if that offends or hurts you but i read your posts and it is painfully obvious that you dont know what you are talking about concerning religious history.

so.try seminary school.
graduate and then our arguments can become legendary!

There isn't much to argue about. You've rejected the Lord Jesus Christ, and you teach others to do the same. You want to do things your own way, and you're willing to risk that you won't face judgment for your sins. God is willing to open your eyes, if you would humble yourself and repent.

oh.and another thing.scholars are still unsure of the exact date of resurrection.
just sayin....

For you, man is authoritative on these issues. I believe Gods word.

>> ^enoch

>> ^lurgee:

Adam was the first man, right? Eve was the first woman, correct? They had two kids, Cain, and the Undertaker...I mean Abel. The Bible says that Cain and Abel took wives. My Question: Where did these wives come from? Who were their parents?
In reply to this comment by shinyblurry:
>> ^lurgee:
Jesus believed the end of the world was coming in HIS lifetime (Mark 9.1). "The historical Jesus" is a Jesus who rests strictly on the evidence. The dominant view among scholars: Jesus was a Jewish Apocalypticist. The end was coming now! (Mark 14.62)

I have to say that I disagree with your exegesis. Firstly, Jesus didn't expect anything to be happening within His human lifetime:
Mark 8:31
And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again
As you can see, He had just said this in the previous chapter. Does it then seem logical to think that Jesus believed the Kingdom of God was coming in His lifetime? Clearly, He expected it to come at some point after His death.
Now, let's examine Mark 9:1
And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
What is He saying here? That those standing directly in His presence would not die before the Kingdom of God came with power . Clearly, then, the Kingdom of God must come within the lifetime of those individuals, otherwise Jesus was wrong. So, how will we recognize when that happens? Let's ask Jesus:
Luke 17:20-21
And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
Here Jesus makes a curious statement. He says that when the Kingdom of God comes, it will not be external to us, it will be internal. It will be within us. What could this possibly mean?
Let's see if scripture draws any parallels..
1 Corinthians 3:16
Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?
We also see that God's Spirit lives within us. Is there any connection between the Holy Spirit and the Kingdom of God?
Matthew 12:28
But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
From this we can see that the indwelling and power of the Holy Spirit is directly associated with the coming of the Kingdom of God. Since the Holy Spirit lives within us, we know that when the Holy Spirit comes to dwell within us, with power (to cast out devils for instance), the Kingdom of God has come.
Therefore, when the Holy Spirit comes, the Kingdom of God is here. When did the Holy Spirit come? On Pentecost:
Acts 2:1-4
And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance
After Pentecost, the disciples were transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit from ignorant and fearful to learned and courageous. They preached the gospel boldly throughout the world whereas before, they had cowardly abandoned Christ during his final hours.
Pentecost meets all of the requirements of Mark 9:1, and when we interpret what the Kingdom of God actually is, we see it fits it perfectly.
In regards to Mark 14:62 and Luke 22:69, here is a more complete rendering:
Matthew 26:64
Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."
The author of the video is of course utterly disingenuous for leaving out this verse and drawing a false dichotomy between Mark 14:62 and Luke 22:69. Clearly, Jesus had said both things in the same breath, but Mark and Luke each only recorded one half of it. Matthew records both halves, which, if you're paying attention, completely undermines his ridiculous assertion that Luke altered Marks text to compensate for a failed prophecy. What this verse shows is that Jesus was speaking of some point around His second coming. Everyone will see Him because everyone will be resurrected to stand before Him. He was not saying they would see Him during their lifetimes. If He was, He wouldn't have said this two chapters previous:
Matthew 24:36
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only
He plainly said that He did not know when that day would come. Therefore, He could not definitively tell the jews they would see Him in His lifetime.
The problem with relying on atheists to interpret the bible is that A. they are only looking to discredit the bible and B. the bible is a spiritual book and can only be properly interpreted by someone who has the Holy Spirit. They can only give you a superficial exegesis that relies on appearances, and always ignores context. They are simply looking for "gotchya" verses with no awareness of the meaning of what they're talking about.



Cains wife was most likely a sister, niece or grandniece. Scripture doesn't say how old Cain was when he killed Abel. Considering their long lifetimes, he might have been hundreds of years old, which meant there were already quite a few people on Earth at that time.

Adam was the first man, right? Eve was the first woman, correct? They had two kids, Cain, and the Undertaker...I mean Abel. The Bible says that Cain and Abel took wives. My Question: Where did these wives come from? Who were their parents?
In reply to this comment by shinyblurry:
>> ^lurgee:

Jesus believed the end of the world was coming in HIS lifetime (Mark 9.1). "The historical Jesus" is a Jesus who rests strictly on the evidence. The dominant view among scholars: Jesus was a Jewish Apocalypticist. The end was coming now! (Mark 14.62)


I have to say that I disagree with your exegesis. Firstly, Jesus didn't expect anything to be happening within His human lifetime:

Mark 8:31

And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again

As you can see, He had just said this in the previous chapter. Does it then seem logical to think that Jesus believed the Kingdom of God was coming in His lifetime? Clearly, He expected it to come at some point after His death.

Now, let's examine Mark 9:1

And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

What is He saying here? That those standing directly in His presence would not die before the Kingdom of God came with *power*. Clearly, then, the Kingdom of God must come within the lifetime of those individuals, otherwise Jesus was wrong. So, how will we recognize when that happens? Let's ask Jesus:

Luke 17:20-21

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Here Jesus makes a curious statement. He says that when the Kingdom of God comes, it will not be external to us, it will be internal. It will be within us. What could this possibly mean?

Let's see if scripture draws any parallels..

1 Corinthians 3:16

Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?

We also see that God's Spirit lives within us. Is there any connection between the Holy Spirit and the Kingdom of God?

Matthew 12:28

But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

From this we can see that the indwelling and power of the Holy Spirit is directly associated with the coming of the Kingdom of God. Since the Holy Spirit lives within us, we know that when the Holy Spirit comes to dwell within us, with power (to cast out devils for instance), the Kingdom of God has come.

Therefore, when the Holy Spirit comes, the Kingdom of God is here. When did the Holy Spirit come? On Pentecost:

Acts 2:1-4

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance

After Pentecost, the disciples were transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit from ignorant and fearful to learned and courageous. They preached the gospel boldly throughout the world whereas before, they had cowardly abandoned Christ during his final hours.

Pentecost meets all of the requirements of Mark 9:1, and when we interpret what the Kingdom of God actually is, we see it fits it perfectly.

In regards to Mark 14:62 and Luke 22:69, here is a more complete rendering:

Matthew 26:64

Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."

The author of the video is of course utterly disingenuous for leaving out this verse and drawing a false dichotomy between Mark 14:62 and Luke 22:69. Clearly, Jesus had said both things in the same breath, but Mark and Luke each only recorded one half of it. Matthew records both halves, which, if you're paying attention, completely undermines his ridiculous assertion that Luke altered Marks text to compensate for a failed prophecy. What this verse shows is that Jesus was speaking of some point around His second coming. Everyone will see Him because everyone will be resurrected to stand before Him. He was not saying they would see Him during their lifetimes. If He was, He wouldn't have said this two chapters previous:

Matthew 24:36

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only

He plainly said that He did not know when that day would come. Therefore, He could not definitively tell the jews they would see Him in His lifetime.

The problem with relying on atheists to interpret the bible is that A. they are only looking to discredit the bible and B. the bible is a spiritual book and can only be properly interpreted by someone who has the Holy Spirit. They can only give you a superficial exegesis that relies on appearances, and always ignores context. They are simply looking for "gotchya" verses with no awareness of the meaning of what they're talking about.