>> ^shinyblurry:

No bible was used in the making of this video, because it is factually incorrect. If you have to distort something to mock it you don't have a case..I thought atheists liked to boast about their bible knowledge?
Eve was tempted by Satan, not a talking snake. Adam and Eve both sinned when they ate the fruit, but the crime was not eating fruit, it was disobeying God. Their sin brought death into the world.
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"
Jesus and the Father are not the same person. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, but they are both God. God is three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not impregnate Mary; the Father sent the third person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit, in this wise:
"And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God."
Jesus did not sacrifice Himself to Himself. Again, the Father and the Son are not the same person. He was an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. He bore the punishment (death) for all sins so that through Him, we could be forgiven for our sins and be given eternal life.
"This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins"
A dead body was not required for Gods plan of redemption, to correct the mistakes human beings made. What was required was a man who lived a perfect, sinless life in total obedience to God. Since no human being could fulfill that requirement, God sent His Son in our place.
"Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ."
People are not sent to hell for doubting the love of God. They are sent to hell for their sins. God offers forgiveness to every single person, and He does not desire that any should perish, but that all will come to repentance. Never the less, because God is Holy and just, He will punish all sin.
People are not saved by taking the sacraments. That is a catholic ritual. We are only saved by faith in Jesus Christ, and that faith alone will justify us before God. We eat bread and drink of the fruit of the vine in remembrance of Him, but that is all.
The Kingdom of Heaven is not in the sky. The Kingdom of Heaven is on Earth, and will be in this Universe. We are not going anywhere. We will experience life as God had originally designed it, here on Earth, before the fall.
The gospel is simple:
We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and the wages of our sin is death. Because of sin we are spiritually separated from God and headed for His prison called hell. He has set a day to judge the world, and on that day all sin will be punished. However, God doesn't want to send anyone to hell. He created it for the devil and his angels, not human beings. He loves us, which is why God sent His only Son to bear the punishment for our sins, in our place, so we wouldn't have to go to hell. He took all of our sins upon Himself on the cross, and died in our place.
Now, because of Jesus, we can be forgiven and go free. Jesus paid our fine in full. This is the good news, that through Jesus our sins are forgiven, and that He grants us eternal life. Pray to Jesus Christ and ask Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior, and you will be saved.


~

No bible was used in the making of this video, because it is factually incorrect. If you have to distort something to mock it you don't have a case..I thought atheists liked to boast about their bible knowledge?

Eve was tempted by Satan, not a talking snake. Adam and Eve both sinned when they ate the fruit, but the crime was not eating fruit, it was disobeying God. Their sin brought death into the world.

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

Jesus and the Father are not the same person. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, but they are both God. God is three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not impregnate Mary; the Father sent the third person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit, in this wise:

"And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God."

Jesus did not sacrifice Himself to Himself. Again, the Father and the Son are not the same person. He was an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. He bore the punishment (death) for all sins so that through Him, we could be forgiven for our sins and be given eternal life.

"This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins"

A dead body was not required for Gods plan of redemption, to correct the mistakes human beings made. What was required was a man who lived a perfect, sinless life in total obedience to God. Since no human being could fulfill that requirement, God sent His Son in our place.

"Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come

But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.

For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ."

People are not sent to hell for doubting the love of God. They are sent to hell for their sins. God offers forgiveness to every single person, and He does not desire that any should perish, but that all will come to repentance. Never the less, because God is Holy and just, He will punish all sin.

People are not saved by taking the sacraments. That is a catholic ritual. We are only saved by faith in Jesus Christ, and that faith alone will justify us before God. We eat bread and drink of the fruit of the vine in remembrance of Him, but that is all.

The Kingdom of Heaven is not in the sky. The Kingdom of Heaven is on Earth, and will be in this Universe. We are not going anywhere. We will experience life as God had originally designed it, here on Earth, before the fall.

The gospel is simple:

We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and the wages of our sin is death. Because of sin we are spiritually separated from God and headed for His prison called hell. He has set a day to judge the world, and on that day all sin will be punished. However, God doesn't want to send anyone to hell. He created it for the devil and his angels, not human beings. He loves us, which is why God sent His only Son to bear the punishment for our sins, in our place, so we wouldn't have to go to hell. He took all of our sins upon Himself on the cross, and died in our place.

Now, because of Jesus, we can be forgiven and go free. Jesus paid our fine in full. This is the good news, that through Jesus our sins are forgiven, and that He grants us eternal life. Pray to Jesus Christ and ask Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior, and you will be saved.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

Or, more likely, an army of obedient murderous cyborgs to send to other peoples countries!>> ^Fletch:
Hey, let's build a space elevator!


We already do that. Let's do something a little more enobling as a species. And we can start by hiring THIS guy!

Or, more likely, an army of obedient murderous cyborgs to send to other peoples countries!>> ^Fletch:

Hey, let's build a space elevator!

This isn't really a surprise; he endorsed it back in 1996 but has pretended otherwise until such time as it was politically convenient. This was actually politically inconvenient; it was introduced at an akward time, in an akward way, probably a lot earlier than he had planned, and he won't get much political mileage out of it. It will also serve to divide his base and galvanize conservatives. It's pretty much a lose-lose for Obama, except for the increased donations from the gay elite in hollywood and elsewhere.

I think everyone can figure out where I stand, but I've come to realize that these social issues are really just symptomatic to the larger issue of an apostate church failing to show the love of God. There is also the coming tribulation and the increase of sin in the world. The state is not going to be able to control sin or legislate it away. It is a spiritual battle, one the church must fight by being obedient to Christ, and one a compromised church cannot win.

The laws in Leviticus do not apply to Christians; they were for Israel, for that time and place only. That was the Old Covenant, and Christians are under the New Covenant. In the New Testament, Romans 1:24-27, I Timothy 1:10, I Cor. 6:9-10, and Jude 7 clearly identify homosexuality as a sin. So, immediately his diatribe about shellfish and menstration is a strawman, because none of that applies to Christians in the first place.

In regards to slavery, Dan is purposefully misreprenting the bible, because it does not endorse it. In the Old Testament, there are rules that govern the treatment of slaves in Israel, but in Israel, slavery was not the same thing as it was in modern times. Slavery there was essentially a kind of profession, where people would sell themselves into slavery to have daily food and shelter in exchange for their labor.

Dan is also deliberately misrepresenting what the New Testament says about slavery. For one, Paul did say there are no slaves:

Colossians 3:11

Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all

The bible says that every person has intrinsic worth and value. It says that all people are made in the image of God and He doesn't love the poor man any less than the rich man. In fact very often it condemns the rich man.

Dan also deliberately misrepresents what Paul wrote in the letter to Philemon, because it is the exact opposite of what he implied! Paul told Philemon to let his slave go, and if need be, Paul would compensate him out of his own pocket. Paul told Philemon that his slave had far more value as a free man, and what he said was actually a command to let him go.

Philemon 1:14-21

But I was willing to do nothing without your consent, that your goodness would not be as of necessity, but of free will. For perhaps he was therefore separated from you for a while, that you would have him forever, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much rather to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

If then you count me a partner, receive him as you would receive me. But if he has wronged you at all, or owes you anything, put that to my account. I, Paul, write this with my own hand: I will repay it (not to mention to you that you owe to me even your own self besides). Yes, brother, let me have joy from you in the Lord. Refresh my heart in the Lord. Having confidence in your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even beyond what I say

As far as the reactions from some of the people in this thread go, it's very typical of the sift. The fact is, many of its most vocal members are self-admitted anti-theists. The sift loves videos that bash Christians, and loves anyone who says nasty things against the bible or Christians in general. It doesn't matter if its true, or if it even makes any sense; people who bash Christians and the bible are instant heros here. A pretense of tolerance and equality is brought up when these subjects come up, but hypocritically Christians are always exempt, and often there is a "string em up" mentality as we see in this thread. That the sift denies this was inappropiate, especially at a conference about anti-bullying, is the least surprising thing I've seen today.

Let's face facts..if it were a Christian speaker saying things in a similar tone and manner to a group of homosexuals, it would be as if the world had ended, and many here would be calling for the speaker to be crucified.

Well, despite your condescending tone, you at least have a quote and make a valid point. Nice work.

I'll try to wrap my tiny brain around these life-shattering ideas. I'm not sure how well I'll do after how soundly you made fun of my education, or lack thereof. I thought I had a pretty good public school education. Thank you for showing me the light, that I was obviously the victim of liberal elites who spent too much time getting us to read and think rather than indoctrinating us. We didn't focus too much on what religion early Americans subscribed to, we just learned what they did. They called this "history." Maybe I'll come to an epiphany and find that I too want to write a revisionist history showing how all the founding fathers were really ancient pre-neo-cons, who went on religious crusades to oust any shred of diversion from the One True Faith from this, God's greatest country of all time. Amen.

I'm sorry, I did not mean to be condescending. What they call American history today sanitizes the role of Christianity, to the point that the youth is completely unaware of this nations deeply rooted Christian heritage. The seculization of this country is a recent phenomena. Look at these state constitutions:

Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated:

There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other.

Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. (until 1876)

In 1835 the word “Protestant” was changed to “Christian.” [p.482]

Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated:

Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.”

That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851) [pp.420-421]

Constitution of the State of South Carolina (1778), stated:

Article XXXVIII. That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated… That all denominations of Christian[s]… in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges. [p.568]

The Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (1780) stated:

The Governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election… he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.

Chapter VI, Article I [All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make and
subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I, _______, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth.”

Part I, Article III And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.” [p.429]

But, until I get to that, might as well spout my hippie babble…

First, I'm not going to do your little workbook assignment. I grant, and did grant in my previous posts, that many of the founders could be considered "Christians." I'll also grant that Washington, Jefferson and Adams all went to church regularly and, at the birth of our country, "going to church" was a common social activity.

In this way, religion was woven into the fabric of American society. This is why, in my previous posts, I never said that all the founders were deists or non-believers, but that they understood deism and let it inform their understanding of their own, personal religion. More importantly, they let deism inform how they set up American government.

It wasn't just a social phenomena. Christianity has shaped our nation at the roots. Consider the Mayflower Compact, the first governing document of the Plymoth Colony:

"In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are under-written, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the eleventh of November [New Style, November 21], in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Dom. 1620."

Consider that the "Old Deluder Satan Act", enacted so that Americans would learn scripture and not be deceived by Satan, is the first enactment of public education in this country.

When you say the say our government was influenced by Deism, and not Christianity, you have a long way to go to prove that. At least 50 of the framers were Christians, out of 55.

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Every single president has taken his oath on the bible and referred to God in his inaugural address.

The supreme court, after an exaustive 10 year study, declared in 1892 in the Holy Trinity decison "This is a relgious people. This is a Christian nation.".

The supreme court opens every session with "God save the United States of America.

The reasoning behind the checks and balances is because man has a fallen nature and cannot be trusted with absolute power:

"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

James Madison

It would be incredulous if I had suggested that these men outright rejected Christianity. They did not, nor is it the purpose of the establishment clause to reject any religious sect (the establishment clause, and Santorum's misinterpretation of it, you'll remember, is the main subject of this comment thread).

As I said, you cite some valid evidence that the concept of god has always been a part of our government. But, you also haphazardly claim long-dead men to be zealous Christians when there are plenty of primary source documents to suggest they were not. I'm saving my big quote for something that has to do with the establishment clause directly, so you'll have to do your own homework if you want to find the many instances where all of the men you reference criticize organized religion. They are there, and if you like, we can have a quote war in later posts.

Here's my long quote response to you, more on topic than yours, I think:

"Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem."
-TJ 1802

Do you not realize that this very letter you are citing, which TJ wrote to the Danbury Baptist association from France, is the entire foundation of the claim of "seperation of church and state"? Those words do not appear in the constitution or anywhere else. It was only a series of court rulings starting in 1947 which interpreted the establishment clause through this particular letter that led to "seperation of church and state" as we know it today. However, this interpretation, in light of the evidence I presented you in the previously reply, is obviously false. The "wall of seperation" that Jefferson is referring to does not mean what you and the liberal courts think it means. If it did, again..why would Jefferson attend church in the house of representitives? Why would he gives federal funds to Christian missionaries? Why would he be okay with teaching the bible in public schools? None of that makes any sense in light of the interpretation that is espoused today. Consider these quotes from William Rehnquist, former chief justice of the supreme court:

"But the greatest injury of the 'wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. . . . The "wall of separation between church and state" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”

“It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history. . . . The establishment clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly forty years. . . . There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state]. . . . The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or the intent of the framers.”

I think this gets to the heart of the matter better than you or I ever could. For you, it shows that Jefferson wasn't shy about using religious rhetoric and proclaiming that he believed enough in Christianity to appeal to this group of clergymen on their home turf.

For me, it shows exactly (though more aptly worded than I could pull off) the point I and others have been making in this comment thread. Not that the founders were without religion, but that they realized the danger of letting religious "opinions" guide legislative policy. It speaks volumes of their intellect that these men, even when living in a society where being religiously aligned was the norm, even having attended seminary and church on a regular basis, still sought fit to vote against aligning their new country to any one religious sect.

There are plenty of founders who believed that Christianity was central to our identity as a nation. Why do you think it says in the declaration of independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It says our rights come from God and not from men. Why do the founders say things like this:

"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."

John Hancock

"And as it is our duty to extend our wishes to the happiness of the great family of man, I conceive that we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world that the rod of tyrants may be broken to pieces, and the oppressed made free again; that wars may cease in all the earth, and that the confusions that are and have been among nations may be overruled by promoting and speedily bringing on that holy and happy period when the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and all people everywhere willingly bow to the sceptre of Him who is Prince of Peace."
--As Governor of Massachusetts, Proclamation of a Day of Fast, March 20, 1797.

Samuel Adams

Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ."

James Madison

“To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."

George Washington

God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?”

Thomas Jefferson

This is why some of us get bent out of shape when Santorum proves his ignorance on this issue. He may understand the establishment clause, but if so, he presents his position as an appeal to ultra-religious citizens. When he addresses arguments against his stance, he interprets them as "a religious person cannot participate in government."

I'll say it again: Religious citizens have just as much right to participate in government as anyone else. But, their opinions, if they are to be considered in an official capacity, must stand on their own merit. Laws are not just if their only basis is: Jesus says so.
I think the misunderstanding is entirely on your side of the debate. Atheists are basically trying to rewrite history and say this nation was intended to be secular, when all evidence points the other direction.

i sincerely esteem the constitution a system which, without the finger of god, never could have been agreed upon by such a diversity of interests

Alexander Hamilton

Atheists are trying to remove God from every sphere of public life, even suing to remove the word God from logos or remove nativity scenes from public property. That was never the intention of the founders. Many of them were openly religious and felt free to use the government and government funding towards furthering Christianity.

It would be akin to you inviting me to stay at your house, and then I inform you that I am going to completely redecorate it without your permission. I also tell you that you have to stay in your room at all times so I don't have to see you. This is why Christians have a problem with this narrative. This nation has always been predominantly Christian. Our many liberties come directly from biblical principles.

americans combine the notions of christians and liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible for them to conceive of one without the other.

alexus de tocqueville 1835

You're a smart guy, right? You have all that fancy schooling. So, tell me you get this.

Finally, if you would, please expand on your comment: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I'm curious on who you consider "moral and religious" and what we should do with those heathens who aren't

We all have a God given conscience which tells us right from wrong. I think anyone is capable of being moral, at least to a point. We're all equal in Gods eyes, and that is the way it should be in this country. I am not interested in establishing a theocracy; that could only work if Jesus returned. This whole idea though of no government endorsement of Christianity is ridiculous. It's ingrained on our monuments, written on the walls of all three branches of government, stamped on our money, and is deeply rooted in all aspects of our history and culture. You cannot seperate the two. We've already seen the shocking moral decline that America has gone through in its departure from biblical morality. This is evidence that if you try to rip out the foundation, the whole thing will crumble.

>> ^LukinStone:

Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not.

This represents a minority group. India represents the vast majority of arranged marriages world wide and it is arranged for both male and female alike.

Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?

Yes, really. It's simply factual that the two male losers (of the competition) don't marry. They lost = they are the losers. She doesn't compete so there are no losers on her side. Furthermore, the males are trying hard to win (it's easy to lose just shoot an arrow wide). So they are happy to participate even though they are under duress. So no contradiction I'm afraid. (whether or not you "win" by marrying is up to the individual - obviously not true for her).

two main underlying assumptions here.....

I'm not going to make any assumptions about whether arranged marriage is happy or good or whatever. I also don't know whether they last because of dependancy or not - if someone shows me some data supporting that hypothesis..... A lot of ethical and social progress has been made by going against tradition - but not all. And tradition is not fear of change, basically speaking it is a social link to the previous generation.

assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.

They are not even nearly almost all socially constructed. Firstly there are differences at a genetic level (we are sexual beings) Secondly, testosterone level differences create massive difference mentally and physically that account for the majority of character differences.

The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.

No, it's not ridiculous. Men are stronger, have better muscle control, and significantly faster reaction speeds. There are lots of studies showing this - go look them up. It's why we dominate all sports, even ones that don't require strength, e.g. archery, low calibre pistol shooting, golf, badminton, etc. the list goes on. It may be an animated feature but it is still a reflection of real people and real life - otherwise what would be the point of talking about any movie.

Anyway, you've made some very valid points - I can't spend any more time discussing this (too busy) and I'm sure it will be a great movie (btw - I have multiple female children and I'm raising them to be what I call "pioneers" and not "princesses" - so they can do everything the boys do if they want - and when they choose to they do - I also have a bunch of boys).

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^harlequinn:
.......
>> ^hpqp:
......


Your answer contains a large amount of assumptions that seem to support my first point, and further underline the importance of media challenging the perception of gender-roles.
1. Arranged marriage is equally unfair in most cultures: half true. Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not. Moreover, most cultures throughout history using arranged marriage allow(ed) the male to have mistresses (or even several more wives/concubines), but not vice-versa.
2. If she is the prize, there are 2 male losers but no female ones: Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?
3. Is fighting tradition a good thing? Arranged marriages last longer: two main underlying assumptions here: "long-lasting marriage" is assumed to be a positive thing, and because arranged marriage relates to "tradition" in the first phrase, it is suggested that tradition is not all that bad. Of course arranged marriages last longer: most of the time they are relationships of dependency (particularly financial, but also psychosocial), and leaving such a relationship would often leave the woman in a very precarious situation (sometimes life-threatening). It is far healthier to be able to leave a loveless relationship when one wishes. More generally, ethical and social progress has always been made by going against the grain of tradition, the latter being the instinct to stick to what's known and familiar out of fear of change.
4. Feminine/masculine characteristics: assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.
The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.
To paraphrase a close friend: the fact that we're discussing the feminism of a cartoon about an adventurous princess just goes to show we have a ways to go before achieving gender equality.
_{oh boy, I went on a rant, didn't I? Sorry for the wall of text!}

>> ^harlequinn:

Thank you, apology accepted. Perhaps I should have worded my question as one sentence, the second question was only meant to refine the first question - text communication is an imperfect medium.
You raise a very interesting point. I believe arranged marriage in most cultures is equally unfair on both males and females since they are both under duress to marry. In this clip we can only assume the males are under duress to compete for marriage. If she is their prize, they are equally her prize. And there will be two loser's on the male side but none on the female side.
Is fighting tradition a good thing? Apparently arranged marriages stick together more than traditional ones ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage - just looked it up, who knew!!)
In regards to the female in this clip: Is the abandonment of feminine characteristics a good thing? And the adoption of masculine characteristics a good thing?
In this particular instance they diminish the natural advantage males have in physical activities (an undeniable scientific fact) and make a statistically improbable situation. In a warrior culture, males are unlikely to be this incompetent.
>> ^hpqp:
@harlequinn, my apologies for assuming that your question was simply rhetorical, but concede that, since you give an answer to your own question (albeit slapped with a question mark), it comes off as very rhetorical indeed.
So is this the best way to remedy this? Make a movie measuring a girl's worth against her ability to do or better exactly what boys do?
And it's that "answer" that prompted my (dismissive, I admit) comment. This clip shows the main character shooting arrows better than the male contestantsy yes, but that is not the point; the point is, why is she doing that? Because she does not want to be married off; she is confronting the role of "princess to be married" because she wants to be able to make her own decisions about her life. I could go on about how women have historically gained rights by proving their worth in so-called "male" occupations (WWII anyone?) but I think the point is clear enough.



Your answer contains a large amount of assumptions that seem to support my first point, and further underline the importance of media challenging the perception of gender-roles.

1. Arranged marriage is equally unfair in most cultures: half true. Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not. Moreover, most cultures throughout history using arranged marriage allow(ed) the male to have mistresses (or even several more wives/concubines), but not vice-versa.

2. If she is the prize, there are 2 male losers but no female ones: Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?

3. Is fighting tradition a good thing? Arranged marriages last longer: two main underlying assumptions here: "long-lasting marriage" is assumed to be a positive thing, and because arranged marriage relates to "tradition" in the first phrase, it is suggested that tradition is not all that bad. Of course arranged marriages last longer: most of the time they are relationships of dependency (particularly financial, but also psychosocial), and leaving such a relationship would often leave the woman in a very precarious situation (sometimes life-threatening). It is far healthier to be able to leave a loveless relationship when one wishes. More generally, ethical and social progress has always been made by going against the grain of tradition, the latter being the instinct to stick to what's known and familiar out of fear of change.

4. Feminine/masculine characteristics: assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.

The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.

To paraphrase a close friend: the fact that we're discussing the feminism of a cartoon about an adventurous princess just goes to show we have a ways to go before achieving gender equality.

_{oh boy, I went on a rant, didn't I? Sorry for the wall of text!}

A nice ripping apart of a retarded video

I just watched it, and it's asinine. He puts words together more because they rhyme and sound 'cool' than actually make any sense.

It's drivel. And as the AA says, he doesn't separate 'Jesus' and 'Religion' at all. If he loves church and the bible and god and jesus then he's loving religion for fuck's sake.

And how can anyone agree with 'Salvation is freely mine and forgiveness is my own, not based on my merits but Jesus's obedience alone'

Huh? So, your merits mean nothing. What you do, what you bring to the table mean nothing? What a fucked up attitude.

The guy in his 'poem' says that he used to be a 'Christian' while getting wasted and having sex and watching porn... but apparently now he's 'seen the light' and doesn't do that stuff.

Instead he's another self righteous dick who thinks that he's found 'the answer' and must tell everyone how he has.

And.. ahem, he has the gall to say in the text under his video (the poem one, not the AA):

Wanna start helping and serving Jesus in a practical way? checkout the company of the watch I am wearing in the video! They give 10-25% of all proceeds to non profits and the bands and faces are interchangeable! http://www.cruxwatches.com

God made the entire universe and everything that has ever had any influence on it. Anyway, God made us, and as he's omniscient, eternal and omni-present in all times. Agreed? Then ultimately it's God's fault it's a "fallen" world (I don't know what that means, but it sounds like a bad thing). It's God's fault we have any defects at all. He knew exactly what would happen, yet he did it anyway.

This world was originally without any death, or suffering. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered the world with it, and that is the reason it is fallen. They made that choice out of free will. God could have forced their obedience, or could have simply never given them a choice, but you can't have a loving relationship with robots who can't choose not to love you.

You might argue that Satan made these defects, but God made Satan, so it's still God's fault. You may argue God didn't make Satan, then who did? Is there another God? Is Satan a god? Is Satan also omni-everything like God, except for not all-loving? Does God not have omni-power over Satan? Why not? Isn't god ALL-powerful? If words have meaning, the story doesn't add up.

Satan is a created being. He isn't omni-anything. He tempted Adam and Eve to sin, but it isn't his fault persay. He didn't force them to sin.

If these defects are "self-created", as you say, God's the one who made the "self" that introduced these new defects, so it's still God's fault for creating selves that can't seem to stop creating further defects in themselves. And then, after purposefully creating all these defects in us, he grants us the opportunity to go against our God-induced defective natures to receive salvation from a fallen state that he intentionally created -- remember, he knows everything. He's either really sick in the head, or he's capable of failure, or he's not all-powerful. Words have meaning.

Or He created them as free moral agents who are capable of defying His will, and they freely chose to defy His will and wreck His creation, even over His direct warnings. He sent Jesus Christ to fix the problem of sin, which He did on the cross 2000 years ago. God has adjudicated the entire matter through His Son, and anyone who wishes to obtain forgiveness for sin and avoid punishment, as well as receieve eternal life, can do so through Him. Whoever wants to reject their pardon and ignore Gods warnings and take their chances will face Gods judgement at the end of the world.

>> ^messenger:
God made the entire universe and everything that has ever had any influence on it. Anyway, God made us, and as he's omniscient, eternal and omni-present in all times. Agreed? Then ultimately it's God's fault it's a "fallen" world (I don't know what that means, but it sounds like a bad thing). It's God's fault we have any defects at all. He knew exactly what would happen, yet he did it anyway. You might argue that Satan made these defects, but God made Satan, so it's still God's fault. You may argue God didn't make Satan, then who did? Is there another God? Is Satan a god? Is Satan also omni-everything like God, except for not all-loving? Does God not have omni-power over Satan? Why not? Isn't god ALL-powerful? If words have meaning, the story doesn't add up.
If these defects are "self-created", as you say, God's the one who made the "self" that introduced these new defects, so it's still God's fault for creating selves that can't seem to stop creating further defects in themselves. And then, after purposefully creating all these defects in us, he grants us the opportunity to go against our God-induced defective natures to receive salvation from a fallen state that he intentionally created -- remember, he knows everything. He's either really sick in the head, or he's capable of failure, or he's not all-powerful. Words have meaning.>> ^shinyblurry:
We live in a fallen world and this manifests in genetic defects, mental defects, and yes, even defects in following our conscience. I have the opinion that many of these defects are self-created. In any case, God can still present those so afflicted with real choices, and the opportunity to receive salvation.

First paragraph is interesting, and has 2 good questions in it. One, how can you trust something that comes from something that can't be trusted. Second is the issue of what rationality even is. And is it even possible to bring it into question, ever. These 2 questions are the prime questions in my own person philosophy, and mirror some of the greater minds of history, I am, after all, only a single man in the long history of human thought.

I too am but a man, limited and small, but hopefully I can bring some godly wisdom into this. Between the two of us, maybe we can reduce this down to size.

I think the first question is actually very easy to answer, not to say that I didn't struggle for an answer for a long time. It is hard to think of things like this completely unclouded. But, the answer remains very easy, for me that is. There is a famous logical fallacy called "Guilt by association" , or, the Hitler Card, or various other things *Reductio ad Hitlerum when being MR. Smarty Pants *. For me to have a problem with its emergent nature from nature; I would need to be able to make an argument against it based on its own lack of integrity, not its associations with nature. One shouldn't be to troubled making this failed comparison, I do it more often than I care to admit!

Yes, I believe it is commonly referred to as the genetic fallacy. That the conclusion is inferred based on a defect of origins rather than the current meaning. I would not condemn rationality on that basis alone, but I use it to show that necessarily in the secular worldview, rationality is not the invincible and eternal God it is made out to be; that it had very humble origins inside a petri dish. This is just to crack open the door of introspection.

To say the same thing over, an objects creation doesn't mean it is still only consistent of the properties that made it. One can see this in ourselves, we are made from inorganic material, and thusly, it isn't proper to say we aren't organic because we came from the inorganic. Also, when I combine things of 2 different chemical properties, it is likely that I will arrive with something with completely different properties from the other two. So both in the logical base, and the higher abstraction, we fail to condemn rationality, we must attack its merits if we hope to win!

You're right, not much is to be gained by this particular argument about rationality. We must go deeper and suss out what it actually is.

The way you went about trying to condemn rationality from my own starting point of naturalistic existence was, however, the correct way to go about it. What I mean to say is you didn't try to use reason to undercut reason, like the postmodernists do, but tried to show that the foundations, at is concerns my own world view, are unfounded at the base. Proper technique, but a flawed argument, IMO. Leaps ahead of some European thinkers though

Thanks. I am happy that you understand that this is about worldviews and their foundations, because that is really the heart of the matter. Many people don't seem to realize that their belief system is a lens through which they perceive reality. Jesus said this is the pivotal issue:

Matthew 7:24-27

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

The second issue of the first statement is that of rationality itself. What is it that we even mean! For myself, I have divided the term into several sub-terms to help me both think about it, and talk about specific properties of rationality. The 2 terms that I an other continental philosophers have used are Logic and Reason. Reason being the so call a posteriori method of thinking, which fall to the realms of science, and Logic; being the dubed A priori, or statements that are a necessarily true...or true without need for examination. You might of read many of my rants on how I do not trust A posteriori as a method for finding truth. It leaves itself to all the problems of induction that for my part, have never been resolved.

I agree that we can reduce rationality into those two sub-terms, Logic and Reason. So let's examine..

For logic, we have the laws of logic, which are absolute, immaterial and unchanging. Yet the Universe is material and always changing. There is nowhere in nature to point to the laws of logic, yet they clearly exist. I account for these because God is a logical being who is absolute, immaterial and unchanging. So where does logic come from and how is it absolute? I don't see how they can be accounted for in a secular view.

To analyse reason, I'll just ask a simple question. How do you know your reasoning is valid?

As far as "TRUTH" with a capital T, I hold that science and all inductive methods have ZERO claim to it, and because of the way I define knowledge (as true, certain, belief) also does not expand human knowledge. So, as an element of rationality, I don't not hold it to any great merit of truth. It is GREAT at understanding the universe as humans can experience reality, but only so far, and only so much, and never in the fullest nature as to be consistent with the word "Truth". ( Turns out, I don't explain that I believe in truth only as far as A priori methods can show them, I think any attempt to say A priori isn't a good way to think about things results in you using A priori logical statements to show it isn't true, thus thwarting the objection)

Now here is the elusive question, and the one that plagued me as an agnostic. As pontius pilate asked Jesus, what is truth? Jesus claimed to be the way, the truth, and the life, and He meant this in a literal sense. The way, is in, the only true path for all human beings. The truth, because He is the Creator and Logos. The life, because He is the source of life. Bold claims, to be sure. He claimed to be the foundation of all foundations.

Is there is a truth? Well, it is true that I typed those words "is there a truth?". It is absolutely true even though only you and I know about it (and anyone else reading this). If the record were destroyed and the witnesses were gone it would still be true. If the Universe were destroyed it would still be true. Nothing can ever change that I wrote those words; the truth is the truth. Even if someone went back in time and stopped me from doing it, it still definitely happened. So, absolute truth exists.

The question is, how can you know what it is? You can know the things you have done, and seen, to a limited extent, but beyond that it gets progressively vague. Senses deceive, and so do people. How do you know anything for sure? Well there are really only two alternatives.

To know the absolute truth beyond a doubt you would either need to be omnipotent, or, you would need to receive revelation from an omnipotent being. So you would either need to be God, or God would need to tell you directly what is going on. Everything else is just speculation. It is like a person living in a pitch black room, who goes round and round inside of it, and thinks it is the whole Universe, until God opens the door from the outside.

Side question..what do you think of this statement?: God is perfect.

I don't know that I have ever heard a good explanation about free will. I should point out, that even in my Christianity, I was a 5 point Calvinist. I never have accepted that this quazi-random thing called free will exists in any way, shape or form. In the end, it doesn't even matter, either.

I agree that this is outside our control, of course. My assertion is that it is impossible unless it is something that is given to us. There is no meaningful free will in a determinalistic Universe, which I think is the inevitable conclusion of materialism. Personally, I believe that God controls everything, but in regards to love, we have the choice to love Him or not.

Let me expand why I think that. For me, I don't have the Theological problem you do. I don't have to explain goodness or evil in terms of human choices.

It is pretty simple theologically. Only God is good. Therefore, everything God tells us to do is good. Everything God tells us not to do is evil. The only way to know goodness is to obey God, because we canot obtain to it on our own.

I don't even have to believe in good or evil, or even if I do think it is a "something that exists", I HAVE to remain agnostic about it in the same way I do God, reason being is there isn't really a reasonable way to go about forming the groups "Good" and "Evil". Is it good to tie my shoe laces, or to just slip my feet right inside that shoe! It seems that most of life would either be impossible to show its good or evil value, but even more problematic, why and how!?

You may not define it but I submit that in your conscience you know what good and evil is, and that you live as if they do in fact absolutely exist. It is an intellectual quagmire if there is no moral lawgiver; it is all relative and meaningless. Yet, the whole world acts as if there is an absolute moral standard, and our conscience tells us that, before our intellect kicks in, that some things are right and others wrong. That isn't just wrong to murder someone, it is absolutely wrong. The guilt we have from past misdeeds tells us that we have trangsressed a moral law. So if there is no good and evil, how strange is it that we live as though there is? It makes no sense unless there is an absolute moral law, and in turn, a moral lawgiver.

We can see this problem in Christendom itself, there is no "one way" to be a christian! That was ALWAYS problematic for me. If truth was as easy as being in the bible, then everyone, and I mean everyone would be the same type of Christian. It would be the logical outcome of such a perfect and holy notion of good and evil. So either Christendom is in my same problematic position of not knowing the difference between good or evil, or if that even exists at all; if it wasn't some problem we created to increase the suffering of the world (like good ol Man Schopenhauer though!)

It isn't as black and white as all of that. Remember in the bible that God did non-stop miracles in front of the Israelites and they rebelled against Him anyway. Remember that Jesus did even more miracles and they ended up crucifying Him. So, the problem isn't with God, or His Word, it is with human beings. If you put God on the right and Satan on the left, and you lined up all of the Christians in the world between them, their placement in the line would be determined by what percentage of their heart they had given to God. Whatever percentage they haven't given to God is run by the world and their desires, and the more true this is, the less able they are to interpret the holy scriptures. It is the reality of sin that has created all of these different interpretations and denominations. There is one truth, and billions of Christians imperfectly interpreting it. The fact is, only Jesus was able to lead the perfect life of obedience to the Father. We all have a teacher, the Holy Spirit, to guide us into all truth, but only if we listen to Him.

So in other words, being the result of atoms bouncing around off each other degrading the absolute randomness of choices I make isn't something I have a problem with personally. As it is, my own existence, even if planned by nature or God or even myself, still remains so far beyond my ability to grasp at even day to day instances of any particular situation that even that; planned or random I have no real guess as to the goings on of that day. Perhaps if I was an all powerful God, with absolute knowledge of all factors of existence and all properties of existence I might find reality a little tedious.

It is much bigger than our limited awareness, that is for sure. What I have learned is that there is no such thing as coincidence. Try eliminating that word from your vocabulary for a few days. You might notice some very interesting things.

As to the quote, I think it a little dubious. For instance, it relates thoughts to fizz of a soda. That is fine, but they also have a comparison to HOW similar they are to each other. For instance, 1 and 2 are both numbers. There isn't really a problem with them both being numbers at the same time, its a party yall, all the numbers get to the dance floor! However, even in their exact "numberness" of being all "numbers", they still have differences to each other, even while still being numbers! So while the "one"ness of 1 being one is still just a number, a number which is a number exactly the same way 2 is, their is also a difference between 1 and 2, and it is inherit to the way that both exist. In the same way that A=A, A!=(!A). The basic laws of identity and contraindication. 1 may be of some degree of similarity to 2, and likewise, Fizz to thinking. But there is also a degree of separation. One could say the same, on a high level argument, that both smell and touch are of the "Same" physical representation of an object. So while the object they correspond to has a oneness with itself, the individual properties of its oneness are unique and independent. And not just via the method of induction, but it is AUTOMATICALLY apparent and true that things that are different are not the same. So the comparison of the atomic nature of both fizz and thoughts is ABSOLUTELY true, but so are there differences. It is those absolute differences that I, personally, use in my own method of philosophy which I borrowed and adapted from my limited understanding of Phenomenology.

I think you kind of missed the point here. It is just an analogy to show that if our thoughts are just the product of some brew of chemicals and electricity, and you and I just happened to get different chemicals, then your doubt and my faith have nothing to do with what we believe. They are just the natural result of how we are assembled and nothing else.

As to the last assumption of my beliefs, I actually don't have the same material requirement for existence. I find the views of George Berkeley, that we all exist in the minds of God, as the one of MANY, near infinite, plausible methods we could exist metaphysically.

Sure, there are many ways to imagine this, and I've heard quite a few. I think the only two meaningful questions concerning this is..is there a God, and if so, has He introduced Himself?

One might also mockingly bring up the idea of a spaghetti monster, but I have ALWAYS found that to be extremely uncharitable with the way "NORMAL" theory is crafted.

The FSM has no explanatory power. You don't get a Universe from flying pasta. The only workable theory is one that could explain all the meaningful questions that we have. I find all of those answers in Jesus Christ.

My current understanding of the universe certainly allows for a God, in fact, I find myself leaning that way more than my atheist brethren. It was, for me, certain, though, that the God of the Christian variety didn't satisfy all the problems that I had.

What problems do you feel He fell short on?

So my metaphysical undemanding doesn't have to find its roots in matter. I don't hold that matter is all there is, or that matter ISN'T all there is. I think there is not enough evidence to say either way. Moreover, I don't know that such evidence could even exist, which is why I am not only atheist, but also agnostic.

Ahh, but if you're agnostic you cannot be an atheist. If you don't know if the evidence could exist, then necessarily you don't know that it couldn't exist either. To be a true agnostic is to have no bias in either direction.

I think we are most likely creatures that are good at doing what we do, and truth...absolute truth, isn't really valuable as far as not getting eaten by a tiger is concerned.

It would be very valuable if God could help you avoid the tiger.

As such, I think humans have very few tools for understanding truth, from a Gods eye view perspective. It is the great arrogance of man that most cranktankerous arguments between scientists and religious people have with one another. We really do have more in common than different...we really have no clue what's going on. 7000 years of human discovery, great monuments of technology and thought, and yet, the truth is still as elusive as it ever was.

As I was saying above, without being God, or having direct revelation from God, we are only chasing our own tails. If there is no God we will never know how it all began or what is really going on. What I believe is that there is a God who has revealed Himself through the person of Jesus Christ. That we can know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

Hopefully, this huge wall of text has some merit and value, for I have written it while ill. I hope I have portrayed my message without the normal anger and hate associated with such inquiries. Of note, such pleasant conversations are truly all I exist for, if not for them, my life is worthless. As a person, I hope only to accomplish knowledge, and the pass that knowledge on to others. Nothing else really matters to me at all. Which is why, at times, I have lashed out at those undeserving because of the deep relationship I have with this type of endeavor. Imm'a let this fly now, and hope the typos don't completely obscure it, but I need to sleep.

I have enjoyed and appreciated your conversation. It certainly is a lot to chew on. I enjoy these kind of philosophical discussions; they have always been my bread and butter. I also appreciate that you are strictly concerned with knowledge, and how committed you are to it. I wholeheartedly approve of your endevour. Truth is what matters to me, second to love. When I was agnostic, I tied my brain into a million knots searching for it, and when I became aware there is a spirit, the mystery deepened 1000 fold. I feel I have found what truth is, which is the love of God, and I hope to share as much of that with you as I can.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK

you seem to be advocating a theocracy based on biblical principles to establish a religious based government.
the idea of something like that frightens me more than dealing with any single despot or tyrant and history has shown that theocratic rule is anything but righteous,fair or benevolent.
see:
dark ages.
the inquisition.
the crusades.
even as recent as ireland in the 70's and 80's.
when the church dominated the politics of europe,before the reformation,there was more :murder,rape,torture,oppression under an iron-fisted authoritarian rule than any despot could even HOPE to match.
all in the name of god.

I am advocating a theocratic kingdom, headed by Jesus as King, and nothing else. No government run by human beings is trustworthy. I prefer a capitalist democracy to a dictatorship any day. Unfortunately, that is where we are headed with the one world government.

freedom of religion is one the best and all encompassing tenants of american society because not only does it give you the RIGHT to worship how you choose but gives your neighbor the RIGHT to either worship under a different doctrine,or not at all.
the LAW is the great equalizer (and one of the things that is being corrupted and a main reason for OWS).

I agree, everyone should have a right to choose what they believe. That is a God given right, which the founders supported. We also have the right to deal with the consequences of those beliefs. I agree this is being corrupted in modern society (mostly because the moral framework provided by the bible is being pulled out from under us)

what about me?
you already know that i would considered an apostate to the christian church.
would you watch them burn me?
would you watch in horror as my flesh fell of me like melted ice cream and made yourself feel better by reminding yourself that it was gods will and if only i had accepted the "right" way to be a christian? why did i have to be so stubborn and not see god the way that you did.read the gospel the way you did? believe in the way you did?
would you watch?

Of course not. If they were murdering you, I would be the first one to jump in and try to save you from that madness. We are not judges of one another. Only God is the judge of our lives

and i have to say that i dont fully believe your sincerity when you say jesus would not choose sides,because you know full well that christ walked,talked and ministered to the underbelly of his society at the time.he broke bread with pagans,oracles,the diseased and unwanted.he railed with a savagery against the dominance of the church in his time,the aristocracy and the money makers.
he offered a hope and a freedom.a salvation from those who oppressed.
he pointed to the hill of those in power and told the disenfranchised "my father does NOT reside on that hill.you are NOT forsaken.it is THEY who pretend to hold the key that are lost...but YOU can be found.but not through them but rather through me".(paraphrasing of course).he was the way and the light.

I agree with everything you say here, and it is well put, but that was His first coming, where He came to live on Earth as one of us, and to ultimately suffer and die for our sins. On His second coming, He is returning with power and great glory as sovereign King over this world and as judge of the living and the dead. This is the equation He left us with:

Matthew 12:30

Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

And this is the question on His mind:

Luke 18:8

I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of
Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"

what makes jesus even more intriguing is that,contrary to a common misconception perpetrated by the church (of course).jesus came from an affluent family.
yes..he did.dont argue.
a carpenter now may be seen as common labor but back in jesus's day a carpenter was a craftsman.the ability to build things not only was held in high regard but was usually someone of affluence,wealth and influence.
how humbling is that?
jesus walked away from wealth,power and influence to bring truth to the poor,oppressed and enslaved and started a movement of his own 2000 yrs ago that slowly and totally underground became one of the most powerful messages even to this day.

I'm not sure about His material wealth, but Jesus certainly was rich..and it humbles me that he gave it up to take on the lowly status of a human being:

Hebrews 2:9: “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.”

Philippians 2:7-9 Jesus “made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name” that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,to the glory of God the Father

now of course over the years those who sought power and influence saw the potential of jesus's message and took it over,perverted it and sold it as somehow being divine. so not only do i think jesus would stand with those at OWS (and all over the world for that matter) i think he would rebuke the church as well.

I think He would rebuke both. However, this conspiracy theory of yours doesn't make any sense. If you think the bible has been altered since the 1st/2nd century, that isn't true. We have the early manuscipts and they all match up. If you're talking about the disciples, all but one were all martyred for the gospel. This is very good evidence for the facts of the gospel, because they certainly wouldn't all willingly die for something they knew to be a lie, especially when they could have recanted at any time. The gospels were also written in the memory of living witnesses. So, I'm not sure how you fit your conspiracy in there..because the early church is filled with martyrs who were direct witnesses and felt the evidence was good enough to die for.

The claims of Jesus are unequivocal..He said he was the Messiah who was from Heaven, Gods very Son, and that He was there to take away the worlds sin, and after His resurrection, to take a position at the right hand of power..and to return as King and judge over the whole world. You can't really get great teacher or hero for social justice out of any of that. He was all of those things, but foremost He is Gods Son.

oh the delicious irony if that ever really happened.it tickles me to no end.
in any case.
i always appreciate when you respond my friend.

Anytime bro. It's always enjoyable to engage with you. And it *will* happen, so you need to be ready for it..the signs are all there, especially with the reformation of Israel in 1948.


>> ^enoch:
@shinyblurry
BR>
oh the delicious irony if that ever really happened.it tickles me to no end.
in any case.
i always appreciate when you respond my friend.

We understand you're super spiritual and don't need "evidence" or "reason" to come to ironclad delu..er.. conclusions about what is just and reasonable.


I think it's reasonable to expect police action when you have just been warned it is imminent.

Your morality is "faith-based". You have the faith to believe that obedience to authority is the best outcome. All the time. Duh.

No, I don't believe that. I believe that all authority comes from God and we have a moral duty to obey it, except when it contradicts His direct commands.

Tho most of the folks you debate with,however, have morality based on.. reasons,earnest evaluation,empathy.

I haven't met a single atheist who is able to explain what their moral foundation is beyond whatever they feel like at the time.

You and we are on twooo different uh.. wavelengths. It's a good video tho. = ]

You love the world, I love God who created the world. That's the difference.

OH yeah, quick question. Do all good zygotes go to heaven?

You know like, some eggs get fertilized but god hates them so they don't get attached to the uterus.

I mean, they don't even have time to repent for the sin they were born with just 36 to 72 hours ago! It's just not fair, i think.

Oh yeah! And do sperm have souls too? o_O?

Cause, I been wonderin' about when a person first gets her or his soul and..
you know, like..
worried I might be sendin' all my little guys straight to hell. = /

You should be more worried about where your soul is going, because unless you place your trust in Jesus as Lord, you will face Gods judgement and end up there yourself.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

OH yeah, quick question. Do all good zygotes go to heaven?
You know like, some eggs get fertilized but god hates them so they don't get attached to the uterus.
I mean, they don't even have time to repent for the sin they were born with just 36 to 72 hours ago! It's just not fair, i think.
Oh yeah! And do sperm have souls too? o_O?
Cause, I been wonderin' about when a person first gets her or his soul and..
you know, like..
worried I might be sendin' all my little guys straight to hell. = /