I support this. But the big banks already colluded with government and committed a banking coup that shut down and absorbed small and midlevel banks not two or three years back. I wonder how long it would be after a big exodus from the big banks before CUs would be targeted.

*promote the proper biblical representation of women!

Remember men, don't you covet that ass!

>> ^kronosposeidon:

One of my favorite Biblical passages, Exodus 32:26-28:

32:26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
32:28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

That's right, God told the Levites to kill family members, friends, and neighbors. And by God they did it, thoroughly. 3000 murders, all at the behest of a bipolar deity.
Still, I can understand why God is a mass-murdering son of a bitch. We made him in our own image.


Pics or it didn't happen.

I was interested at the beginning of the video to see how a religious kid would document and analyse the exodus (ha ha!) of youth from his church. I was even ready to jump in with something witty about using the interview backdrops from the "The Secret" DVD. But by the end of the video it was clear that this was a film maker following the Michael Moore tradition of deciding beforehand what the conclusion to be drawn was going to be, and it's about something I have absolutely no interest in: whether there's any scriptural basis for something or other that some people in the Church think is a problem for the Church.

Scripture is poppycock, and anyone who tries to find basis for anything in it is boring to me. I also don't care about "the American Church" and its rubber walls. So I gave it a pass.>> ^Sagemind:

Funny - I actually expected a lot more - in the way of comments on this one...

Thanks for the promote

In reply to this comment by Shepppard:
*Promote

Music is Exodus

*Promote

Music is Exodus

Not as impressed by this one as I am the one that's set to "Exodus"

The music didn't really seem to fit, or do anything to enhance her performance.

Leviticus. what a great guy. But why don't god botherers heed ALL of his advice, not just the being gay bit.


Leviticus is not the name of a person (nor are Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy or Numbers - though I think Deuteronomy would be a great name). One could make a good case for Christian hypocrisy in failing to observe a number of Old Testament commandments (while focusing on homosexuality), but it's much more complicated than your list would suggest (and in some cases the items you mention are a long stretch). There are, for example, very solid arguments to be made that animal sacrifice wasn't necessary after Christ.

In general, this kind of thing has been thought about by Christians for millenia.

For whatever you or I think about it, a reading of the Bible wherein homosexuality is a very grave sin is very natural (similarly, a natural reading of the Bible supports legal ownership of slaves). I'd love to agree with you and say something about how this guy isn't "really being Christian" or something - but the answer is not that easy.

The reality is that living your life doing your honest best to follow the Bible is going to, in many cases, end up with you doing stuff like this. Over time, it's going to get harder and harder to pretend that the Bible is in correspondence with (or the basis of) modern Western ethics and morality.

lol..off the top of your head..now you're just full of shit..those are popular atheist talking points. pathetic. You utterly failed to prove your case; apparently the bible is historically accurate, and you admit this but only for the things you want to prove. like your contention about the freed slaves. It's obvious im arguing with a search engine, a dishonest, disingenuous search engine at that. you don't actually know anything about the bible, or history..what's been discredited here is your testimony. >> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
what I did say however is that it has never, and that is, not once, been proven historically inaccurate
Four off the top of my head, massive events which would leave piles of evidence in the most dug up part of the world, and their complete absence from the archeological record constitutes proof?
In short your argument is that absences of evidence is evidence of accuracy?
>> ^shinyblurry:
evidence of solomons temple http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071023-jerusale
m-artifacts.html

Did you read the link? They found some bone and pot shards, no link to any building or complex like the biblical temple.
>> ^shinyblurry:
evidence of exodus: http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

Half a dozen vague artifacts with pages of excuses as to how they might vaguely "prove" biblical authenticity? Apologetics is not archeology. You still, for some reason, claimed archeology backs you up. If you want anyone to accept that you are going to have to come up with some archeological evidence.

>> ^shinyblurry:
what I did say however is that it has never, and that is, not once, been proven historically inaccurate

Four off the top of my head, massive events which would leave piles of evidence in the most dug up part of the world, and their complete absence from the archeological record constitutes proof?

In short your argument is that absences of evidence is evidence of accuracy?

>> ^shinyblurry:

evidence of solomons temple http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071023-jerusale
m-artifacts.html



Did you read the link? They found some bone and pot shards, no link to any building or complex like the biblical temple.

>> ^shinyblurry:



evidence of exodus: http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

Half a dozen vague artifacts with pages of excuses as to how they might vaguely "prove" biblical authenticity? Apologetics is not archeology. You still, for some reason, claimed archeology backs you up. If you want anyone to accept that you are going to have to come up with some archeological evidence.

I don't know if you're being deliberately stupid, or what..I never claimed everything recorded in the bible has been proven archaelogically as of yet..what I did say however is that it has never, and that is, not once, been proven historically inaccurate..ever..on the contrary, thousands of discoveries have confirmed its 100 historical reliability. Pretty good track record for a bunch of myths, huh? This contridicts your claim that it is historically unreliable, which just shows that you don't know anything about history. The bible has been *the* source for historical information up until more recently..a large part of what we know about ancient history came from the bible.

I'll endulge you in your challenge though..

evidence of solomons temple http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071023-jerusalem-artifacts.html

evidence of exodus: http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

evidence of red sea parting is inconclusive..someone found chariot wheels but it hasnt been accurately verified and eygpt wont let anyone in there




>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
So why is that archaelogically, it has proven to be 100 percent historically accurate?

Okay alternate reality boy, please provide references to any archeologically valid physical evidence of any of these biblical "events":
1) Jewish slavery in Egypt.
2) The parting of the Red Sea.
3) A decades long genocidal rampage in the desert.
4) The construction of Solomons Temple.
If you can even get yourself past the falsehoods in the Pentateuch then we can move on the all the nonsense in your gospels.
>> ^kceaton1:
Shiny, I think the problem is that you are using source A for data and everyone else uses sources B,C, and appendix D.

I'm inclined to agree.
P.S. Please use the quote feature when responding to comments, so that those you are responding to get an e-mail.

I think you're arguing whether or not this is a good system whereas I'm just stating that it's how it works. However, if we follow through on your example, those two men would probably face severe punishment (and/or death) for those actions because they went against the consensus of what the larger population thinks is moral behavior. Evolution by both natural and artificial selection.

While it's a subtle distinction, I believe it's an important one: There's a difference between making a decision based on your emotions and making a decision based on how it will effect other people. Yes, I believe that not causing harm or distress to other people is an objective base. I realize that's controversial.

I'm not arguing about whether it is good or not, I am saying it is madness. Witness the genocide in rwanda, or Nazi germany, or a million other examples of why morality by concensus and feeling is not moral by any definition. If it's all based on what people feel, and agree on, then if they feel that they don't like a group of people, and agree that they all should die, then in your world that's moral! The only thing that would stop such people would be judgment from another concensus. So basically, in your world anything people justify to themselves and get other people to agree on is moral behavior.

Do no harm is not an objective standard, that is such a simplistic way of looking at the world..there will always be exceptions. Such as defending your life, or someone else. You have to make judgments about right and wrong, what is good for more than yourself (which you have no way to determine), and do not harm doesn't cover them. If you had an opportunity to assassinate hitler, would you turn it down because of do no harm? What is the greater evil, killing him or letting him live? Why? For that matter, what makes hitler an objectively worse person than you are? Morality is always a moving target in your world; for it to be objective it can never move. It's insanity in every other case.

God told us that it's ok to beat a slave as long as we don't kill him. Only Israelites are above slavery.

In Exodus we're told that if a bull goes on a killing spree, the bull and the bull's owner are to be put to death. However, if the bull kills slaves, then the bull's owner owes the slaves' owners some cash.

The NT is a little softer (not surprisingly) on slaves, but still states that it's ok to own people so long as you treat them reasonably well.

Generally, were you ok with slavery and other immoral acts before your conversion? Did you really need to be told that these things were wrong? Or did you already know? I bet you already knew and I bet you were no less moral a person then than you are now.

I think you're utterly missing the point of what I have been talking about. It's not reading the bible that makes someone moral. Everyone has a God given conscience which tells them what's right from wrong. Murder is obejectively wrong because that is the law written on our hearts. However, that doesn't tell us how to live, it just gives us a general idea of what to do. That's why we need God to give us instructions on how to live a moral life

It's funny that you're railing against Christianity for slavery; Christians are the reason we abolished slavery. There has never been an abolitionist movement anywhere besides in the Christian west. Your morality by concensus failed to free any slaves, it took Christians to do it. The bible never says it okay to own slaves. Jesus taught that everyone is equal in the eyes of God. Anyone who follows that would know that keeping slaves was wrong. Gods message is progressive according to what people are ready to hear. The laws on divorce in the days of Moses were given because of the hardness of mens hearts. It took nearly 2000 years for people to be ready to free slaves..at the time, it just wasn't going to happen.

@shinyblurry

Sorry for the delay... had some "real life" to deal with (as well as a little sift-nonsense).

Mainstream big bang theory says time and space had a beginning.

Yes, but that's not what we were talking about. You said all matter (material) sprang forth from nothing and BBT doesn't agree.

What about behaviors that have no advantage, which are actually determintal to your survival? Self-sacrifice, for instance..Someone who runs into a burning building to save a baby risking death to do it. If all morality is just selfishness, how do you explain this behavior. It's foolish from that standpoint, because it makes you less likely to survive. Why do people risk their lives for others?

You're the one who said we only act selfishly, not me. I don't believe that at all. My point was specifically that both selfish and non-selfish behavior are part of our nature to varying degrees and that non-selfish behavior tends to benefit us (biologically) more as a species than selfish behavior. That's all that's necessary for evolution to provide morality.

What if you have three men, and two decide that the other cannot be trusted..so they kill him. They did harm, but they think it was for the best, so is that ok? This is what morality by concensus easily leads to, when it is just mere opinion and agreement.

I think you're arguing whether or not this is a good system whereas I'm just stating that it's how it works. However, if we follow through on your example, those two men would probably face severe punishment (and/or death) for those actions because they went against the consensus of what the larger population thinks is moral behavior. Evolution by both natural and artificial selection.

While it's a subtle distinction, I believe it's an important one: There's a difference between making a decision based on your emotions and making a decision based on how it will effect other people. Yes, I believe that not causing harm or distress to other people is an objective base. I realize that's controversial.

Without an absolute standard of good which people have to obey, it could only be subjective opinion.

Agree. Unfortunately that's all we've got. Even your God doesn't stop or prevent people from doing horrible things. He leaves us to fend for ourselves and do the best we can.

God told us that everyone is equal. The bible is the original source for the conception of equality for all people, men and women, free or not. Knowing that, I would never deign to be someones "master", since I myself am only a servent and no better than they are.

God told us that it's ok to beat a slave as long as we don't kill him. Only Israelites are above slavery.

In Exodus we're told that if a bull goes on a killing spree, the bull and the bull's owner are to be put to death. However, if the bull kills slaves, then the bull's owner owes the slaves' owners some cash.

The NT is a little softer (not surprisingly) on slaves, but still states that it's ok to own people so long as you treat them reasonably well.

Generally, were you ok with slavery and other immoral acts before your conversion? Did you really need to be told that these things were wrong? Or did you already know? I bet you already knew and I bet you were no less moral a person then than you are now.

Well, apparently it took the bible to get people to realize slavery is wrong because there has never been any abolitionist movement outside of the Christian west, anywhere. Jesus taught every man woman and child is equal under God, which was a new idea. That alone tells you it is wrong. If people followed that they would have abolished slavery a long time ago. As far as the old law is concerned, it is noted by Jesus that some commandments were given because of the hardness of mans heart. Meaning, at the time man simply wasn't ready to hear the message.

>> ^cosmovitelli:
Ah. Understood.
>> ^shinyblurry:
And sure, you could enjoy a meaningless, purposeless existence. You wouldn't be internally consistant and would have to delude yourself, but yeah you could enjoy if you didn't think too hard.



>> ^shuac:
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Christopher-Hitchens-badly-loses-debate-to-William-L-Craig#comment-1212374'>^JiggaJonson</a>:<br />
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry" title="member since January 21st, 2011" class="profilelink">shinyblurry</a> @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/jonny" title="member since July 10th, 2007" class="profilelink">jonny</a><br> <br> Even if jonny thinks he can be moral without god, and you think you can, it doesnt change the fact that god cannot grant a rule any more power or significance than it already has intrinsically. <br> <br> For example: It's wrong to murder. <br> Now if I say "Why is it wrong to murder?"<br> You saying "Well god says it's wrong" doesn't MAKE it wrong to murder.<br> <br> Try it in reverse to illustrate:<br> It's right to murder, everyone you come across should be murdered.<br> Now I say, "Wait that's not right, you shouldn't end another person's life!"<br> And you say "Well god says it's right to murder."<br> ^THAT doesn't all of a sudden make it right to murder (maybe in your mind, but maybe I'm talking to the wrong guy) So when it comes to morality, god really is irrelevant. <br> <br> <i>A rule is only as good as its intrinsic quality.</i><br> <br> p.s.<br> I never liked the ceo/king analogy in the first place, it makes huge assumptions about the existence of god.<br></em>
Correct, JiggaJ. I'd like to add a related point that slavery, which the entire civilized world now agrees is an abomination, was wholly endorsed by god, the author of the bible.
The only real restraint god provides on the subject of slavery is that we not beat our slaves so severely that we injure their eyes or their teeth (Exodus 21). Nowhere in the new testament does Jesus object to the practice of slavery. It even tells slaves to serve their masters well. Obviously, this is not the kind of moral insight that put an end to slavery in the United States.
Shiny may remind us that abolitionists also drew inspiration from the bible. I have no doubt they did. People have been cherry-picking the bible for millennia to justify their every impulse, moral and otherwise. This does not mean that accepting the bible to be the word of god is the best way to discover that abducting and enslaving men, women, and children is morally wrong. It obviously isn't...if you go by what the bible actually says about slavery.
The fact that some abolitionists used parts of scripture to knock down other parts does not indicate that the bible's author is the arbiter of morality. Nor does it suggest that it's a terrific idea for human beings to consult a book in order to resolve moral questions like this.
The moment a person recognizes that slaves are human beings like himself, having the same capacity for pain and pleasure, he will understand that it is patently evil to own them and use them like farm equipment. It is remarkably easy for a person to arrive at this conclusion - and yet, it had to be spread at the point of a bayonet throughout the Confederate South.
Real morality, independent of the demented god of the bible, is what we use to tell the difference between the bad and the good contained in the "Good Book."
[edit: damn this quote system! btw, I'm paraphrasing Sam Harris with much of the above]

>> ^JiggaJonson:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry" title="member since January 21st, 2011" class="profilelink">shinyblurry @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/jonny" title="member since July 10th, 2007" class="profilelink">jonny
Even if jonny thinks he can be moral without god, and you think you can, it doesnt change the fact that god cannot grant a rule any more power or significance than it already has intrinsically.
For example: It's wrong to murder.
Now if I say "Why is it wrong to murder?"
You saying "Well god says it's wrong" doesn't MAKE it wrong to murder.
Try it in reverse to illustrate:
It's right to murder, everyone you come across should be murdered.
Now I say, "Wait that's not right, you shouldn't end another person's life!"
And you say "Well god says it's right to murder."
^THAT doesn't all of a sudden make it right to murder (maybe in your mind, but maybe I'm talking to the wrong guy) So when it comes to morality, god really is irrelevant.
A rule is only as good as its intrinsic quality.
p.s.
I never liked the ceo/king analogy in the first place, it makes huge assumptions about the existence of god.


Correct, JiggaJ. I'd like to add a related point that slavery, which the entire civilized world now agrees is an abomination, was wholly endorsed by god, the author of the bible.

The only real restraint god provides on the subject of slavery is that we not beat our slaves so severely that we injure their eyes or their teeth (Exodus 21). Nowhere in the new testament does Jesus object to the practice of slavery. It even tells slaves to serve their masters well. Obviously, this is not the kind of moral insight that put an end to slavery in the United States.

Shiny may remind us that abolitionists also drew inspiration from the bible. I have no doubt they did. People have been cherry-picking the bible for millennia to justify their every impulse, moral and otherwise. This does not mean that accepting the bible to be the word of god is the best way to discover that abducting and enslaving men, women, and children is morally wrong. It obviously isn't...if you go by what the bible actually says about slavery.

The fact that some abolitionists used parts of scripture to knock down other parts does not indicate that the bible's author is the arbiter of morality. Nor does it suggest that it's a terrific idea for human beings to consult a book in order to resolve moral questions like this.

The moment a person recognizes that slaves are human beings like himself, having the same capacity for pain and pleasure, he will understand that it is patently evil to own them and use them like farm equipment. It is remarkably easy for a person to arrive at this conclusion - and yet, it had to be spread at the point of a bayonet throughout the Confederate South.

Real morality, independent of the demented god of the bible, is what we use to tell the difference between the bad and the good contained in the "Good Book."

[edit: damn this quote system! btw, I'm paraphrasing Sam Harris with much of the above]