You know, this is a two way street....

Could be you are the one who is brainwashed.

Or maybe, just maybe, we have different opinions.

Oh god the horror! Two points of view in the world! Could there even be.... a third?

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMqrsggEGx0

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

You put ad homs in the title of that video (not to mention the 'wrong as usual' in your ^comment). Why shouldn't I be able to respond in kind? Respect is a two way street.
And as far as hollow invective goes, there is no comparison.
blankfist usage of the term statist: 17 pages of comments
(http://
videosift.com/search?q=statist&t=c&u=blankfist&o=&vmin=&vmax=&sh=&l=&n=&b=&submit=Search)
dystopianfuturetoday usage of the word libertard: 1 comment, and it's in this very thread.
(http://videosift.com/search?q=libertard&t=c&u=dystopianfuturetoday&o=&vmin=&vmax=&sh=&l=&n=&b=&submit=Se
arch)


DFT, how is statist or statist idiot ad hom? If I said, "DFT is a statist idiot" then that would be one thing, but I didn't - or hope I haven't. When people say "libertard" or "blankfuck" they're referring to me specifically in the hopes of denigrating my argument.

Maybe read up on what an ad hom is? Either way, this is boring me. Moving on.

You put ad homs in the title of that video (not to mention the 'wrong as usual' in your ^comment). Why shouldn't I be able to respond in kind? Respect is a two way street.

And as far as hollow invective goes, there is no comparison.

blankfist usage of the term statist: 17 pages of comments
(http://videosift.com/search?q=statist&t=c&u=blankfist&o=&vmin=&vmax=&sh=&l=&n=&b=&submit=Search)

dystopianfuturetoday usage of the word libertard: 1 comment, and it's in this very thread.
(http://videosift.com/search?q=libertard&t=c&u=dystopianfuturetoday&o=&vmin=&vmax=&sh=&l=&n=&b=&submit=Search)

I'm not offended by anything you said. I deal with innumerable rejections on practically every conceivable angle, from the pagan to the satanist to the atheist to the nihilist to yes, the ex-christian. The things they all have in common is the misunderstanding of biblical truth, the mission of Jesus Christ, the state of creation, good and evil, and the sin nature. I'll try to answer to your statements.

Love and justice are not pitted against eachother and I am not sure why you say that. For instance, would it be loving to allow your children to just do whatever they want without consequence? We see the kind of children this creates every day; ones with no morals, empathy or wisdom. Children need boundries or they're going to hurt themselves. It's up to the parent to set those boundries, and enforce them. If you give a child a rule without enforcing it, they will just roll right over it and you. Now, take it up a notch. What kind of society would we have if we didn't have punishment for capital crimes? People will argue against the justice of a Holy God but not blink when someone gets sentenced to life for murder. How is it any different? That's every bit as permanent as Gods justice, ultimately, yet we as a society are okay with it.

You talk about arbitrary choices, but it's people making the choice, not God. If it were Gods choice exclusively, He could just override everyones will. However, If God overrode your choice, would that be love? You know it wouldn't. Yet, He keeps the door open your entire life. He is constantly reminding you and warning you, and not only that, but looking out for you. Love is a two way street. If you refuse to accept Gods forgiveness, how can you blame Him for not forgiving you? It's your personal choice and your personal responsibility to own up to your sins.

Your statements about Jesus fall a bit short as to the specifics of Gods plan. Far from being a mockery of justice, it was a perfection of it. For there to be perfect justice, every sin must be punished. For there to be perfect love, everyone must have a chance to be redeemed. Both of these seeming contridictions are reconcilled in Jesus Christ. I'll explain..

This is a fallen creation, due to the sin of one man, Adam. It is imperfect. Thereby, everyone born into it inherits this imperfection, which is the sin nature. God gave us the law to give us the standard of behavior which leads to perfection, and thus back into perfect relationship with God. The problem was that no man was capable of fulfilling this law, because Gods perfect justice requires a sinless life. Jesus was the first to be perfectly obedient to God and lead a sinless life, thus fulfilling the law. The law was given because of sin and was fulfilled by the sinlessness of Christ. Just as one mans sin caused creation to fall, one mans sinlessness redeemed it. Because He perfectly obeyed the Fathers will and fulfilled the law, when He took on our sins He earned no condemnation for them. It's because of His sinlessness that He was able to be the perfect sacrifice.

So now because of all this, man has a chance to be perfected and again enjoy perfect relationship with God. Jesus made a way for mankind to be reconcilled to God. Justice has been done on the issue of the original sin. So now, this is justice: that the one who rejects Christ stands condemned. The only way to escape punishment is be saved by the grace of God. That is what justice is after Christ fulfilled the law and broke the power of death. We are spiritually perfected by the indwelling of Gods Holy Spirit, so that we are remade in the image of Jesus Christ. This is what it means to be a new creation in Christ, to be born again. Thus we are no longer held accountable to the law, because the penalty has already been paid. Rather, we are under grace.

Yes, God is sovereign, and He has every right to judge His creation as He chooses. Yet, He Himself has never violated any of the rules he has laid down. That gives Him justification. Also, you seem to think people are innocent, when they're not. There is no one good, not one. How shall an unrighteous sinner judge a Holy God? Read the book of job for what a ridiculous proposition that is. He is the author of history and our lives..how shall a child instruct Him? We don't have any right to tell God what to do..none of us are justified. We're all hypocrites. Your personal sin makes you completely unqualified to judge God, yet here you are saying He is a hypocrite and a liar and a fool.

Gods judgement became a stumbling block for you, and so you abandoned Him and now claim He isn't worthy of your love. Yet, has He ever stopped loving you? Has He written you off like you did Him? Who is really worthy here, and who isn't? If you had just persevered through your misunderstandings, the answers would have been forthcoming. Yet you gave up and then your thoughts became futile and your heart was darkened. This is always about personal accountability to God. Everything you've mentioned here is an excuse for something you failed to live up to. Sorry if that is harsh but I have to tell you the truth. God is Holy, and worthy of worship and all praise. He is worthy of our love, though we are not worthy of His. Yet, even though you abandoned Him the door is still open. It is only your refusal to be reconciled and obey Him that is causing this issue of your understanding. Being an ex-christian who knows the bible, you should know that. I pray you find the truth and repent and be reconciled once more.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry
Sigh, I was trying to avoid being drawn into a theological conversation about love and judgement, but I guess I asked for it.
There are some major theological and philosophical problems with your resolution of justice and love. Let me go into a couple of them. But before that, let me say that I am not hatting on your faith right now. These are just my personal waxing on Christianity. I am no some master of theology, but I am also not naive of the bible and basic logical constructs. Understand, that I am not trying to drag you down or give you excess flack, you have had your fair share of that lately. BUUUUT since you did take the time to write something else, I thought I would return that favor.
First and foremost, you can't resolve what is unresolvable. Love and Justice are pitted against one another in certain instances. There comes a point where you can't be loving and just...you must make a choice. For instance, if your wife cheats on you, you have a choice. You can either forgive her or your can choose not to ignore it and break off the relationship. This has a few oversimplifications like, you could still be with them but also hold it against them, but that goes against the other idea of love, which is forgiveness (so they wouldn't be in a loving relationship anymore). At the end of the world, God makes an arbitrary choice, he decides to not love people who didn't accept Christ, and decides to continue to love those whom did. For the damned, the statement of Corinthians "Love never fails" surely has lost all meaning to them...love wasn't enough.
Second of all, if God is ok with transferring blame from those who are damned to those who are not, then he is forbidden to be the referee in any gaming event I control. It is a mockery to the ideals of justices to let the innocent suffer for the deeds of the wicked. I can't think of a MORE unjust act. The entire "idea" of salvation is a rosy picture. But if you actually care about justice, the idea of salvation flies right in the face of it. Either God isn't as loving as he would say he is, or he doesn't care about justice as much as he says he does. One must be true. God must either not be all loving, or not care about perfect justice. There is no need for judgement if both those things are not true (fucken double negatives!). Would you punish your neighbors dog for peeing on your rug when it was your own dog? Punishment is non-transferable if you really care about justice, period.
Also, it is a mockery to justice that Jesus still gets to go to heaven, even after being made sinful in our stead. Let us take another example. Let us say I am a murderer. I start racking up the kills, become the number one murderer of all times. Then, I get caught. On my behalf, the richest, most affluent political figure in the world decides to accept all the punishment for my crimes. For some crazy ass reason, everyone goes along with this idea. Being so rich and powerful, he is able to get all the charges dismissed. So he and I get away with the most hideous crime of all time, and no punishment is dealt out, to anyone. Is this justice? If it is, God once again can't be the ref any any sporting events I control. Jesus was made imperfect for our sake. Imperfect things do not go to heaven. Jesus should not be in heaven, period. If he is, then the God never really cared about the charges anyway, or doesn't really take justice very seriously.
I also don't understand how the Bible is able to claim the punishment for sin is death, when everyone dies anyway...even the saved. O ok, so I guess their spirit gets to live on or something, but who's spirit died in their steads? I can tell you it wasn't Jesus's, because he is supposedly chilling in heaven. The fact is, SOME will suffer death from sin, others will not. The saved are a special case where the rules needed for their salvation aren't needed because no one is going to die from their sins anyway. I mean Jesus might of literally died, but we all do that, so Jesus didn't save anything there. What you mean is a figurative death, and Jesus is surely not figuratively dead either. So no one died for Christian's sins, and no one died for the damned sins...sucks to be the damned. Once again, God can't see over any sporting events I frequent.
Also, I don't think the Bible supports the claim of "It's not that God wants to punish you...". For instance, in Romans it talks about how God specifically makes vessels of wrath.
"What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction?"
They have a name for that in Chess, they are called pawns. And while Chess is only a game, it does seem to me that God is more playing a game with us than loves us or cares about us, from the bibles perspective that is. Romans gives way to this even more with:
"“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”"
Reasons? I want to, I'm God, shut up. Misunderstanding, I don't think so.
"One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"
This is the kind of flack an adult gives out when a child catches him doing something wrong. And while in many cases, it is the child's very naive understandings of the world that lead to this situations, many times, they are justified in the question and more importantly, and answer.
I should point out, that I used to be a 5 point Calvinist. Formerly, I used to look at Romans as the great justifier of predestination. It was a power verse of immeasurable theological insight. When I read it now, I have only sadness. It isn't like this is a trivial question to ask God, but in Romans, he brushes off our very important question like he doesn't give a flying fuck. Sadness. Granted it is Paul, not Jesus, but it is still "His word". Deepening sadness.
I have about 6 more points but I have already gone on for far to long. I hope this doesn't get stolen by atheists as ammunition to fire against Christians. Nothing would make more sad than my own personal insights being used to hurt someone. These are but a few of the troubles that lead me away from Christianity being the answer for my life. I actually hope I am wrong. I hope that other people will get to enjoy heaven, even without me. I would hope that there is an actual just God out there, looking out for us, protecting us, making sure the wrongness in the world is "taken care of". But as for wrongness, I only start to see more and more of it in the bible. What used to be a shining beacon of hope, is now a book of how not to care about justice and love.
To this day, though, 1 Corinthians 13 is still what I use to define love. It is also the root of my deconversion. The love I see in 1 Corinthians 13 does not exist in the God I read about in the rest of the bible. That is all, sorry if I cause you any pain or strife with my words. Or, indeed, anyone other person of faith that reads this. If that be the case, than I have failed in great way.

It's a two way street Netrunner. I made my position very clear. Most political speech in the US - including Beck's - is non-violent and in no way relates to blood libel. I made no bones about my position in that regard.

My initial post made no comment about whether Beck used violent or non-violent speech. It was just a full-context description of the Beck quote. I referred back to that initial post because that's what I thought you were talking about. I was mistaken in my understanding of what you were referring too. No need to go all drama-queen about it.

But on to the subtance rather than the pointless. You said, "You're saying Glenn beck talking about needing to shoot people in the head before they shoot us in the head is non-violent, while blood libel, which is just a made-up story about Jews using the blood of Christian children in religious rituals, is violent."

Your whole position seems to be that Beck's whole "you're going to have to shoot me in the head" schtick is the equivalent of Nazi blood libel... You've asked several times 'what's the difference'? I explained the difference. I'm not sure why you are so reluctant to accept the explanation. The only possible reason is that you reject the idea that what Beck said is 'not violent', but that you actually in fact and all reality believe that there is no difference.

I've said it afore in the Daily Show thread, and I'll say it again. I do not consider political bombast to be violent, nor is is a 'call' for violence, and it does not inspire or 'gin up' violence either. When politicians 'target' demographics, it is not violent speech. When the NRA says, "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" it is not violent speech. When Glen Beck says, "You're going to have to shoot me in the head to get me to stop talking about the founders" it is not violent speech. When Robert Gibbs says, "We're going to put our boots on their necks" it is not violent speech.

No right-minded person who hears these things construes them as actual calls for real-world violence. These are political phrases, passionate rhetoric, 'metaphors' (as you once said), or stupid exaggerations. Bachman does not actually expect people to go around armed and dangerous. Obama does not really expect people to bring guns. Beck does not expect people to get shot in the head (himself or others).

What did you mean by "non-violent opinion"? Were you talking about Glenn Beck there? After all, that was what I had asked you about.

I didn't have Beck in mind specifically, but he is certainly included under the same rubrik. No one believes Beck was either calling for himself to be shot in the head, or for others to be actually shot in the head. Would I have used the phrase if I had a TV show? Highly unlikely. However, I defend the right of dummies to run off the mouth. It helps you see who they are. So when right wing bombasts like Beck flap their yaps, I applaud it. Much like when I applaud it when left wing bombasts like Maddow or Maher vomit out the true landscape of their minds.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Despite what Barack Hussein Vacation says, muslims have never played a significant role in American history, just minor negative roles.
Religious freedom is a two-way street. Tolerating one religion which then demands all others live by sharia law or die is suicide.


1. Scientific Revolution. You seriously didn't know about this you need to pick up a history book. Baghdad was one of the most scientifically exciting places in the world.

2. Building one Mosque doesn't mean we're going under Sharia Law. Wanting everyone to follow Sharia Law is the goal of every religion, just their different brands. You don't like a Mosque there, that's your right...you don't have a say in where people build things though...in fact I think people are suffering from a case of overimportance. Nobody asked for your permission, nobody asked if you cared about the city allowing a Mosque to be built in New York. So shut up.

Also replace Mosque with "Community Center funded by a major share holder of Fox News."

Thank you Seth McFkface, creator of the unfunny "Cleveland Show", a weekly insult to Blacks.

This mosque-with-alibi-attached is an affront to Americans murdered by islam. The dolts who shrug that off should at the very least recognize poor taste.

The imam behind it is a POS radical (big surprise) "New York is the capital of the world, and this location close to 9/11 is iconic." That's the vermin's quote.

The quran states it is acceptable to lie to and deceive non-believers.

muslims build mosques to memorialize their conquests.

islam is a gutter 'religion' founded by a pedophile/gigolo/warlord. The faithful muslim has three choices when meeting a non-believer: convert them, enslave them or kill them.

There are a few handfuls of "moderate" muslims. BFD. They are 'wise' cowards who don't speak out against the radicals, therefore they get what they deserve.

Despite what Barack Hussein Vacation says, muslims have never played a significant role in American history, just minor negative roles.

Religious freedom is a two-way street. Tolerating one religion which then demands all others live by sharia law or die is suicide.

It's not weird. You're just a douchebag.

>> ^bleedmegood:

There are several different variables that factor in to whether or not I will go down on a woman....after all is said and done there are only about 30% of women I deem cunnilingus-worthy.....remarkably tho, I like to receive oral from 100% women.....weird huh? I't's a mystery of science and mathematics I suppose.....
>> ^bananafone:
Same could be said about guys who go down on women. Seriously.
And don't get me started on the guys who refuse just after I go down on them. It's a two way street, boys.

There are several different variables that factor in to whether or not I will go down on a woman....after all is said and done there are only about 30% of women I deem cunnilingus-worthy.....remarkably tho, I like to receive oral from 100% women.....weird huh? I't's a mystery of science and mathematics I suppose.....
>> ^bananafone:

Same could be said about guys who go down on women. Seriously.
And don't get me started on the guys who refuse just after I go down on them. It's a two way street, boys.

Same could be said about guys who go down on women. Seriously.

And don't get me started on the guys who refuse just after I go down on them. It's a two way street, boys.

Big corporations hate the internet for at least two reasons:

1) they see it as a source of revenue currently beyond their reach, and

2) they know that if you control the medium, you control the message.

And aside from China, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and a few other global black holes, when one speaks of government regulation--especially in America--one is speaking of corporate regulation by proxy.

If the internet isn't as free and as open as it can possibly be, it loses at least 50% of its real value, in human terms, immediately.

Because the internet is a two-way street and a poor-man's soapbox.

When you turn it into a one-way street, you have a new form of television, and if you put the soapbox out of reach of the common person, you have business as usual: a rich game for rich men and all others need not apply.

Why drag the NAACP into this? What the hell do they have to do with this? The suspect isn't even black!

It's a two-way street. If the punk endangered others and antagonized officers, he shouldn't be surprised to be brutalized. But if the cops violate anyone's rights and blatantly break the law, they shouldn't be surprised if any second-rate lawyer can get the guy off. In both cases actions have consequences.

(Lastly, I'll add that if you cheer on the officers violating the rights of people, don't be surprised if one day they kick you in the face, because they decided to play judge and jury with you.)

>> ^volumptuous:
We have helmet laws for reasons. I'm not sure what "force" you speak of, as in LA you just get a ticket for not wearing a helmet. Not really "force".
But helmet laws are not just there to oppress bike riders. They're there for everyone's benefit, as if I accidentally hit someone on a bike, I'd rather the person doesn't splatter their brains all over the pavement.
Maybe you think cyclists should have the "freedom" to splatter their brains wherever they want, but I should have the freedom to not kill someone when it could be easily avoided. Same goes for seatbelts.


You're right. We should also ban sidewalks, because a lot of people are hit while walking on them or waiting at bus stops. We should also ban two way streets because of the number of head on collisions resulting in death.

The drug laws are there for a reason, and I think they should extend those to cover alcohol as well, unless of course you think people should have the "freedom" to put into their body what they wish. Remember! Prohibition laws are not just there to oppress users. They're there for everyone's benefit.

I now see the error of my ways. I will now vote for more safety and less freedom.

>> ^elysse:
Gee... wonder where women POSSIBLY GOT the idea that youthful appearance and large breasts were keys to success and better self esteem?
..hmmm... Let's think hard on that one.


While I'll upvote your comment, let's not forget it is a two way street. Women are just as culpable for electing to pursue the youthful appearance and large breasts, etc, etc.

Hardly. The "progressive" movement originally thrived on opposition, which morphed into mindless opposition, then...became the Establishment. Now that much of the left's odious moral relativism has becomed Established, it feigns shock that anyone would oppose it.
That maybe true but it's nothing new. Like any original idea and or message it becomes distorted as new voices and ideas are introduced. My frustration is not necessarily in you criticism of the left as much as it's your lack there of for the right. (maybe I just haven't been on the site long enough) That is to say that in my opinion both sides are completely and utterly useless and dysfunctional at present. Isn't there a more constructive way to fight for the country you would like to see? That said I'll be the first to say that I am incredibly guilty of what I just chastised you for. I know full well it's not easy to let go.
As for being immune to their follies I would agree but again that's a two way street. I think it ridiculous that the margin for error for anyone attempting to make a difference whether you agree with it or not is slim to none. It's completely unrealistic and the atmosphere of immediately destroying another for attempted change (I'm not necessarily referring to Obama there) has to stop if this country wants to work again.