Congratulations! Your comment on Jehovah's Witness Receives Applause For Shunning Sister has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 40 Badge!

Your video, Jehovah's Witness Receives Applause For Shunning Sister, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

FFS, I'm not trying to make an argument. As for watching the video, that wasn't a waste of my time, it was entertaining and informative unlike the article which was desperately trying to excuse an awful situation.

But fine, you want an argument? Let's do this.

"If one doesn't want the very small set of restrictions that go with some (not all) religiously affiliated hospitals, don't go there. One does have a choice."

You have that backwards. If you don't provide all the services required of a hospital, you don't get to call yourself a fucking hospital.

How would you feel if there was a Jehovahs Witness hospital that didn't do blood transfusions? Or a Christian Science hospital that refused to do medical treatment?
Both of those are real world examples where people died.

There's a big bloody difference between "not equipped" and "unwilling". In a local area, there might be several smaller medical facilities, but finding two major care centres across the road from each other is pretty rare.

And it's a bit fucking rich to bring up false equivalencies when you just compared unavailability of potential life-saving medical treatment to someone whinging over not getting a big mac at kfc.

As for the article:

"First, Bee ignores the fact that Catholic teaching on human life and reproduction is a fundamental, longstanding tradition of the Church, passed down from one generation to the next for centuries. "

Irrelevant. Next...

"But Catholic priests, bishops, and cardinals don’t give “reproductive advice”; they articulate the truth about human life and reproductive ethics in accord with Catholic teaching."

Really? They "articulate the truth"... as I said before, this is self-evidently complete and utter fucking bullshit.

"the claim that women will be without care if they are refused service at a Catholic hospital."
Er, even the article acknowledges that Bee understands this point and makes the point that in an emergency situation, you go to the nearest available centre that can treat you.

"This is another straw man. In most cases, when women want a particular reproductive service, they have ample time to locate and attend a non-Catholic hospital. "

Yes, and in most cases, people do. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE FUCKING TALKING ABOUT.

"Even in the few emergency situations — which Bee presents as if they are the vast majority of cases"

No, she really doesn't.

"Though it sometimes might be inconvenient for a woman to travel to a non-Catholic hospital, the inconvenience surely does not outweigh the importance of conscience rights, which demand that Catholic hospitals not be forced to provide procedures that Catholicism deems morally wrong."

Yes, "inconvenient" is exactly the right word for a woman who is probably in the middle of the worst day of her life.
I mean, she might end up "inconveniently" dead, but hey, we wouldn't want to stop catholics telling other people how to live, would we?

"In reality, a direct abortion (in which a doctor intentionally kills a child) is never medically necessary to save a mother’s life. If a woman is having a miscarriage, having her child killed in an abortion will do nothing to improve her health or save her life."

And here we come to strawman of all strawmen. The problem is NOT that a woman needs a "direct abortion", it's that she may a surgical procedure that kills the child inadvertently. And this isn't theoretical, women have died from this.

The fundamental point is that religion has no place in medicine. If a patient wishes to refuse certain treatments because of their beliefs, well, they're an idiot, but it's their choice to be an idiot.

But a hospital doesn't get to refuse treatment based on some bronze-age belief. If the treatment is legal in its jurisdiction and they have the capability to provide it, they must provide it. Businesses should not be allowed to refuse service on religious grounds ("I am religiously opposed to treating gay people or blacks!!")

As you said yourself "If you don't like it, go work somewhere else".

@ahimsa

and now we move to stage two of the predictable vegan argument:

distinctions.


oh fuck me with a razor bladed dildo this is some tiring and facile shit.

look man,you are seriously missing my main point:
pretentious twattery and a morally and philosophically inconsistent stance.

so you can keep quoting anybody and everybody because it is apparent you really do not understand what you are quoting,and it is not adding anything to our discussion...at all.

maybe..
possibly..
just something to consider...
you approach expressing the values and benefits of being a vegan sans the self-righteousness,the pretension and condescension?

that maybe because YOU became a vegan for moral and ethical reasons,others may have come to it from other means and for other reasons,and allow those who are NOT vegan to come to their own conclusions and make their own choices?

and maybe not be so judgey mcjudgerface if they choose differently than you?

look man,we all do something that gives us the "feel goods".

some recycle obsessively,even though there is little evidence that actually makes a difference.

others drive a hybrid and feel that is their contribution,even though it is actually worse.

some will only buy organic and/or shop locally.(thats me btw)
and even though this brings some coin to the local farmers,taken on a whole it is barely a blip against the monster that is wal mart.

i have friends who do beach clean up every year,even though it gets destroyed within a month.

so we all try to do something that fits our perceptions of the world and how we can make it a better place.

and yes..if we ALL got together we could make a massive change in the current dynamics,not only locally but globally.

so i get it mate..i really do.

i guess what i am suggesting at it's core is this:
stop acting like a newly converted jehovahs witness who just wants us all to hear about your new buddy jesus.

i also think i should share that my long time girlfriend is vegan.
not your judgey,self righteous,pretenscious type vegan..but a vegan.

and that girl can't cook worth a damn.
which means that cooking falls on ME.
do i still eat meat?
yep,but not that often and rarely..raaarely red meat.
and to my girls credit she never gives me shit,i may get the upturned nose but never actual verbal shit.

red curry anyone?

OMFG... really bob... really... It's people like you that made me ashamed of being a Christian when I was a Christian. Completely believing anything they are told or read from someone with supposed authority without actual critical thought of the original source themselves.

I've hear that Jefferson never meant to exclude religion from politics and believed and repeated it myself for years. Then you know what I did? I actually read the letter that Jefferson wrote. I could have my son, who's going into 6th grade read it and he'd tell you the same thing I'm about to tell you. It's about keeping religion from unduly influencing politics. Especially when you read it in context with the letter that the church sent him that he was responding to, and it becomes more apparent if you read his drafts which were much more to the point.

Yes the phrase "wall of separation" does come from the letter and not the Constitution, but the 1st Amendment includes an establishment clause that prevents the government from favoring one religion over the others. Remember the pilgrims came here to escape a Christian nation that favored one form of Christianity over all others. Admittedly they were more about the fact they couldn't persecute others the way they thought they God wanted them to, but it was the government's church that prevented them from doing so. You can't even be King or Queen of England unless you belong to the Church of England, and if you were Catholic at some point in your past, you are disqualified, even to this day. Yeah, the Church of England no longer has as much influence over the laws as it did when the pilgrims and other early settlers escaped England to come here,

And if the only reason Christians are good is because of fear of punishment or hope for reward, then they are horrible people. Millions of people are good because they are good people without their faith dictating to them to be so. Most people of other faiths are good without the racist brutal Abramic God of the Bible. Most atheists are good without any god. Most pagans are good with their various gods. This insane all morality comes from God alone didn't make sense even when I was at my most evangelical, Fox News watching/defending mode. There were too many people in the world who's good without God and even in those days the concept that somebody would be good only because the Bible tells them so, or they are afraid of God's wrath if they don't is backwards. And as I read the Bible more and more, it became apparent that the far rights obsession with people's sin over love was misplaced (though the far right's sickening defense of Dugger shows a great deal of hypocrisy since if Dugger was on the Left, they'd be all about his sin rather than showing any sort of love, it's when others sin differently than they do they get upset, like at the gays). It was reading the Bible that moved me to the left as the clear Christian way, since the right defends and loves the people Jesus condemned and shames the people that Jesus defended and told us to love and help. It eventually got to the point I couldn't hold onto faith when over half the Christians of this Nation just blindly follow what they are told in church and on Fox News over the truth that Jesus and the Bible was teaching and thinking they were doing the Christian thing at the same time. I then began to do a critical analysts further and eventually became an atheist, because they are all equally bad/good. There is nothing new or original in the Abramic faiths that wasn't there before or since either in the same region or elsewhere... all those other elsewhere's where Jehovah somehow couldn't make himself known, as if he was just a figment of one small regional tribe or worse a racist jerk not worthy of following.

Anyhow, the best way to maintain Christianity is to keep it out of politics. Because what happens if you set things up to let religion influence politics and the Muslims gain power? Then you'll be crying how religion shouldn't influence politics. Or perhaps not that extreme, perhaps some form of Christianity that other Christian's don't agree with gains power and influence? Perhaps the Morman's or the Catholics or the Jehovah Witness? At what point does religious influence stop? When laws are passed that any church that doesn't practice or allow the speaking in tongues is outlawed? The 1st Amendment is designed to keep religion out of politics in order to protect religion.

Let's break that last sentience out again. The 1st Amendment's establishment clause is designed to keep religion out of politics in order to protect religion. The whole point is to keep one form of one faith from dominating all other forms of the same or other faiths. It protects those other forms Christianity and other faiths.

Finally there is no war on Christianity. I admitted that long before my fall from faith. I was there with it all, with how it was targeted, but the reality is there is no war on Christianity here... all that's happening is specific forms of Christianity are loosing their influence on other Christians and society as a whole, and they are very vocal about how it's persecution, because like the pilgrims, they are no longer allowed to persecute others the way they want to. Maybe if the people screaming about how Christianity is being persecuted while they try to deny equal rights to others because they sin differently than us, would actually show the love of Christ and behave the way He actually would have in modern society rather than trying to show how Christian they are, then perhaps Christianity wouldn't be losing the numbers they are. I know I, and many other atheists, likely wouldn't have had at crisis of faith if it wasn't for the far right. I never would have explored the logical and theological problems with Christianity and the Abramic faiths... I'd probably eventually found a more Quaker, left leaning (most the Quaker "Friends" related churches in this area are the far evangelical right Fox News types) type church that seems to be more in line with the Bible and teachings of Jesus, but the far right pushed me into a far more critical mode than I would likely ever have gone to on my own. So keep it up those on the far right, you are the ones destroying and making a war on Christianity. You push more and more people away, and more and more people stop seeing any difference between the far right and radical Islam.

Bad-AssssSSS! Jw's Jesus got staked and disintegrated!! He's so 'pissed that when reappears he'll slaughter everyone but the faithful Jehovah witnesses...all 144, 000 of em!! I'm FUCKED

Tags for this video have been changed from 'jehovah, witness, masturbation, barry white, amazing, funny' to 'jehovahs witness, masturbation, barry white, amazing, funny' - edited by xxovercastxx

First started with the video, noticed there was no Barry, then watched via the link.
In reply to this comment by nomino:
That's funny.

Just out of curiosity, did you click on the link in the description after realizing there was no audio in the embed? Or did you read the description, click the link and got what I intended to deliver via youtubedoubler? I don't want people to miss the compounded effect of having the video with the audio. >> ^hpqp:

I think this is actually a video of JWs jerking the Holy Spirit off.

That's funny.

Just out of curiosity, did you click on the link in the description after realizing there was no audio in the embed? Or did you read the description, click the link and got what I intended to deliver via youtubedoubler? I don't want people to miss the compounded effect of having the video with the audio. >> ^hpqp:

I think this is actually a video of JWs jerking the Holy Spirit off.

Wait, what?? This is f...king real?!?!?!

The mom looks infinitely more evil than that rubber snake! Ah, SHAME, just another tool in a parent's war chest.
>> ^Jinx:

So, err, I actually thought this was a parody until the very end.

Would you like me to change the title or description to fit your personal projection? I did not tell you anything other than a video description. But as a loving Jehovah witness I would love to change everything about the videos educational wording to suit you.

In reply to this comment by Enzoblue:
This is one way someone makes pistons. You can't tell me BMW makes them this way. Too much human involved and at 4-8 cylinders per every car you see on the road, way too slow a process.

What I mean is that I don't really believe you. I've spoken to many atheists who claimed to be ex christians but then myteriously didn't seem to know anything about it, like you. I've had atheists tell me they were ex pastors but didn't know any verses. It's a common trick from dishonest people to have that talking point. My point still stands. Just saying you prayed a lot doesn't make you a Christian. What makes you a Christian is understanding what Christ said and following it. The scotsman fallacy doesn't apply. You can think you're a Christian and not be a christian. Mormons think they're christians..so do Jehovahs witnesses, doesn't make it true. Unless you're doing what Christ said, you are not a Christian. Ironically, the atheist who coined the fallacy convered to deism shortly after. So even if you had the label of Christian you weren't doing what Christ said, nor did you understand it. Some people become Christians for social reasons..the bible says those people are borrowing the name at a price, which they will have to repay.

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Sounds like you were a pretty terrible Christian..you did as you were told and prayed a lot. lol. This a Christian does not make. The total actual knowledge you seem to have about Gods will, or what is in the bible, could probably fit on the head of a pin with room to spare. You ever stop to think that you never saw God because didn't have any real faith to begin with? Sounds like your parents didn't understand their own faith, therefore raised you in ignorance..you became worldly..and tada, you're an atheist. For the record, every ex-christian atheist I meet never knows shit about the bible..they're also usually ex-catholic.

So, I believed in God, I went to Church, I did Bible studies, I prayed for strength and guidance... and from this you can tell I was a bad Christian? With bad parents?
What happened to "Seek out God and he will reveal Himself to you"?
I guess the only answer I'm going to get is if I guess what you really mean. If God doesn't reveal Himself to you it's because you are a bad person. And you are doing religion wrong. And your faith isn't real. Nyah nyah nyah!
That is what we call the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. I invalidated your claim, and you have nothing of value to respond with, so you lash out with ad hominem attacks against me and my family, who you know absolutely nothing about.
So say what you really mean. You don't mean "Seek out God." You mean "Give your whole life, mind body and spirit, over to something you have absolutely no reason to believe exists, and MAYBE if you believe hard enough you will start to see things which kinda make it look like He might be real."
Or maybe, at that point your brain will be broken and you will start to get confirmation bias towards what you want to believe. It's especially helpful to surround yourself with people who are constantly talking about experiencing God on a daily basis. Seems to me that's about a million trillion trillion trillion times more likely.

>> ^kceaton1:I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you have no idea what "Mormon bible" really means. Since I don't believe in that one or the one with extra action with angels or the one with unicorns or the one with "x^n"... There are A LOT of bibles. Which church is the TRUE church; please enlighten me so I may rip that ONE to shreds. I'm sorry that my "Christianity"™ is not good enough for you.
As to the rest... Go ahead and link every direct observation about the Devil and Hell. It's different in each bible as well. Keep going I can't dig a grave any faster than you are already. BTW, the "Ten Commandments" are old school. So do you follow the New Testament or do you pick and choose what to like when it suites you.
I looked at my religion and others discretely and with observation and found the contradictory fallacies, logical arguments that fail, and the diversity of books, translations, and the number of religions to be enough to stop "divinity" in it's tracks for me.
You've yet to show me any logical reason to follow, somewhere I messed up, or otherwise. You are purely on the defensive. If I may say so, you need to take a hard look at religion is giving you. What would happen if you shut it down, for argument's sake? Would your life, your actions dramatically shift? All I have seen, for now, is by rote memorization quotes or otherwise I learned in seminary or Sunday school. Some of it is different of course, but I guarantee that the majority is the same.
Do you think all people that have chosen to forgo there faith and live a moral life without the fear of an afterlife reprisal all did so because they're Mormon? The only commonality we share is that we chose to question those in authority and piece things together ourselves; as we've been all lied to, which was the best reason to question in the first place.
This will be the last of my responses as I think it is on your shoulders now to logically come to your own conclusion; if you think faith/belief are the only key factors then why preach, as you will never be able to open any eyes with platitudes. If you try to defend again you will only repeat what you've already said.



Whoa there little fella. First of all, you've been asking elementry questions about the nature of God, which presupposes in our discussion that He does in fact exist. All I did was try to answer them. You gave the impression that perhaps you believed in *something*. Which Church is the true church? That would be the Body of Christ my friend. There is no institution which has exclusive rights on Christianity. This is the first fallacy of the Mormon church who has the believe they are the only true church, otherwise their "updates" would be exposed for the fraud they are.

Second, what is this that I don't understand what the Mormon bible means? Isn't that the book of Mormon? What am I not understanding? Jump to conclusions much? The true bible is the one the disciples of Christ wrote, which is the New Testament. There have been many different translations, but essentially they all say pretty much the same thing with the same quotes. The major ones which differ are funnily enough, the Mormon version and the Jehovah Witness version. These cults both started up within the last 200 years and pervert the teachings of Christ to their core. They both deny Christs divinity, with the JWs claiming Jesus was an angel, and the mormons claiming Jesus was the first creature, but not divine. As we know from the bible, anything which denies the divinity of Christ is in the spirit of the antichrist. Meaning, Mormonism by definition is a satanic religion. Worshipping the God of Mormonism is the same as worshipping Satan.

Third, you should really do some real research and gain some understanding before you just go off the cuff. The Old Testament is the original bible, in which is the wisdom of the Lord, and the prophecies which predict the coming of Christ. Christ was a jew. The Old Tesament was His bible, and also the bible of the early disciples. It isn't a matter of picking and choosing. A true Christian believes in both. Christ told us that the ten commandments are still valid, and that he was not there to overthrow the law, but to fulfill it.

Look, I'm sorry you had to grow up Mormon, but I can tell you that your upbringing didn't prepare you for this conversation. You don't seem to know even elementry conceptions about who God is, and what the bible says. For you to just turn your vitriol on me, someone who tried to answer your questions, shows your profound lack of maturity. You're going way out of your way to be as callous and insulting about it as possible. And regards to your purile question, I know what it's like to live without faith. Unlike you, I wasn't indoctrinated; for most of my life I was agnostic. I came to God independently, without religion. From there I followed God to Christianity. If you want to talk about shredding something, I think it should be your bad attitude problem. Good luck and God Bless.

It could be the Virgin Mary, she is worshiped. It could be Mother Teresa, she is revered.

Joan of Arc... Of course all of these women are put down and held back as sluts... After all, they were not the head of households, nor the top of the food chain... I mean, being a Patron Saint of France must have been so degrading--such a lowly place... (Of course, politics led to her later execution, but then doesn't it always?)

Also, Jehovah Witnesses do not believe in eternal punishment. And they are Christian. They think that is beyond god's wrath. Of course they are a peaceful Christian and as such an exception to most religions... And their Dogma, as such and for countless other reasons of peaceful intent, is not very well liked.

So yeah, it has to be the gloom-and-doom that attracts people. But wait? Isn't that true for politics? I mean, that is what the Republican part is based on! Hold, isn't that true for the Entertainment? I mean, who actually paid attention to sex-ed class documentaries? But switch to Titanic and BOOBIES!

Just sayin...

God doesn't agree. Or at least God decided to take him up to heaven early.

Anyone read this total bullsh-t challenge? What kind of coward makes these bold claims of reward to anyone who can answer the questions and then does this:

This is a rough draft. The Challenge will be formally available to everyone the same day i53 releases the first installment of its new reality series "The Great Commission."

Ok, so your contest will never be "official".. bravo.

1. To receive the $5,300, you must answer the question(s) without contradicting yourself.

define "contradict".

6. All responses cost $1.00. This cost is not to generate revenue but rather to curb excessive and superfluous responses.

Ok, nice challenge. Surely they will receive thousands of entries to their bullsh-t challenge. So they aren't even putting up their own money. BUt I agree it is helpful to limit entries especially if people have to read them.

11. Only one $5,300 prize will be allotted. This prize will go to the first individual who can answer the question(s) below without contradicting him or herself.

Ok, again is it first one submitted? First one submitted after the contest becomes "official". What lying cowards.

8. At the top of your response, please state your ultimate epistemological authority... You must be extremely specific when stating your ultimate epistemological authority. That is, you will need to explicitly tell us the one religious text or the one living person that you consider to be ultimately authoritative.

How is this a challenge to atheists or agnostics??? Also, the rules state:

If in your submission, you give ultimate authority to any other living person other than yourself, your submission will be automatically invalidated, and you will lose your $1.00.

So by definition of the contest you must state the ONE religious text you follow. What kind of morons are these? Note that the "Bible" is not in fact one religious text even.

Now the questions immediately invalidate the contest because you cannot answer them all by definition without contradiction. They only apply to different belief systems.

Question 1 & 2
These two questions are for the atheist, postmodernist, or any individual who thinks that man constructs his truth rather than discovers a transcendent truth outside of himself.

Question 3
This next question is for the agnostic, for anyone who does not hold to a formal system of thought, for anyone who holds himself to be ultimately authoritative, or for any non-Christian who believes that truth is discovered rather than constructed ... Please note that this question pertains to all individuals who believe in a god, but their belief stems from their own mind, rather than from some divinely revealed text.

Question 4
This question is for the Hindu, the Buddhist, or any adherent of an (eastern) religion that denies the existence of propositional truth on an ultimate level.

Question 5
This next question is for any adherent of Islam, Roman Catholicism, Judaism, Mormonism, Jehovah Witness, or any monotheistic religion which possesses an authoritative text (or revelation) that claims its (infinite) God has characteristics of justice and mercy.


This is the biggest joke and exercise in mental masturbation. By the contest's own rules even the Christian author of the challenge has failed and cannot collect the money. I'm glad God decided to smote this charlatan