Jesus did make claims to divinity. Here are a few examples;

John 8:58

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am

In this scripture He claims to pre-exist Abraham and the wording He is using in the greek means basically that He had always existed, that He was eternal. Only God is eternal.

Here is another scripture where He is making Himself equal with God:

John 5:16-18

For this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. 17But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.”

18For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

In this scripture He is claiming to be God:

John 10:27-33

My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than allc ; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30I and the Father are one.”

31Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

Yeah, I have heard similar, but it's always from people who don't listen to metal.

Don't get me wrong, Led Zep are one of the greatest bands ever, but they're rock (with some amazing blues, folk, country, etc. thrown in).

They have a couple of songs (Communication Breakdown, Immigrant Song, for example) that are almost-kinda-sorta-approaching metal... but that doesn't make them a metal band, any more than Solitude makes Sabbath a folk band.

And anyone who thinks Sabbath have only a few good songs either doesn't like metal (fair enough, taste is subjective, etc) or has only listened to a few Sabbath songs.

@ChaosEngine

hehe,specifically it was a dude i was in boot camp with.he was a massive hendrix and zeppelin fan and was not into sabbath.which of course our first liberty we both got drunk and traded our favorite songs from both bands.

but i even heard it when i moved to jacksonville florida.everybody told me that zeppelin were the masters of metal and sabbath were only good for a couple of songs.

say whaaaaaaaa?

i had to show them the error of their ways.

-..."they" in that sentence is the Catholics and Protestants.....it's your topic. In a general sense, it applies to most religions as individual groups, and the more dogmatic the followers are, the less tolerant of any dissent they become.

I can read. It's in the bible, and never contradicted or eradicated from the religious 'law'...so it's not what I define their beliefs to be, it's what the bible defines their beliefs to be, and if they don't follow it, what in the hell are they 'believing'?

I think you won't provide evidence because you can't. Someone's misinterpretation of the clear instructions, that let you off the hook for following them, means nothing when you have the clear text to read.

Only one hefty book matters in this instance, and it's undeniably clear. If you don't murder infidels, you don't follow the bible's teachings and so must deny it's God's law....making it nothing but a terrible book of fairy tales.

Edit: I think there's a disconnect about disrespect here. Atheists may not respect your beliefs with lip service and placations, but most religions require the complete eradication of differing beliefs. Atheists absolutely respect your right to believe any nonsense you want to, even if we may try to convince you why you're wrong. Religions invariably do not exhibit that base level of respect, how can you possibly claim they are more respectful?
Could it be that atheists are more respectful, enough to engage the 'other', so SEEM more disrespectful because they're up front and honest about their disrespect for beliefs, while religious people might smile but rarely actually engage in discussion/debate for fear of actually having to defend their indefensible beliefs, so just consider them a subhuman demon to be avoided as much as possible and backstabbed at every opportunity because they, let's say, think Saturday is the Sabbath?
I grew up in Texas, I have plenty of experience with 'Christian respect' for the beliefs of others (or lack thereof)....and it's nearly non existent there. I was told more than once that if I don't believe in God or Jesus my opinion didn't matter, and I wasn't welcome there, and deserved death. A few of those respectful Christians tried to beat some Jesus into me....but never one on one, and never successfully.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by cricket.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Pantera-Planet-Caravan-Black-Sabbath-Cover

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Mordhaus. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video N I B-Black Sabbath-Paris (1970). Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Zappa, Conan, Tesh, Dancing, Weird, Keytar' to 'Zappa, Conan, Tesh, Dancing, Weird, Keytar, The Wizard, Black Sabbath' - edited by lurgee

*Warning I've only gone and done yet another wall of text again! This may or may not get read by anyone on here (good god I wouldn't blame anyone for skipping it), but at the very least it's formed the backbone to a video script so it's not a complete waste of my time! (he tells himself)*

This is as much @bareboards2 as yourself, but he already made it clear he wasn't willing to engage on the issue, so you're getting it instead MWAHAHAHHAHA! *coughs*

I don't wish this to come across as over condescending (though I'm sure it will none the less as I'm in one of those moods). But pretty much every (successful) comedy premise operates on the same underlying principle of irony. i.e. there is an expectation or understanding, which is deliberately subverted, and what results is comedy.

In this case, amongst other things we have the understood premises that:
A. rape is a bad, often horrific thing.
B. that there is an established social taboo about praising such behaviour.
C. that there is a section of society inherently opposed to making light of things of which they do not approve (or in a way in which they do not approve)
D. most words and phrases have an expected association and meaning.

What Jim Jefferies (an accomplished and well respected comedies amongst his peers) has done here, is take these commonly understood premises and subverted the audiences normal expectations in order to evoke a sense of irony, from which the audience derives humour and amusement.

A simple joke might take a single such premise and perform a single inversion of our expectation. e.g. my dog has no nose, how does he smell?....terrible!

By subverting our assumed meaning (that the missing nose refers to the dogs implied lack of olfactory senses), the joke creates basic irony by substituting this expected meaning for that of the odour of the dog itself.

This is of course a terrible joke, because it is as simple as a joke could be. It has only one layer of irony and lacks any sense of novelty which, might tip such a terrible joke into working for any other than the very young or simple minded.

We could of course attempt to boost this joke by adding more levels of irony contextually. e.g. a very serious or complex comedian Like say Stuart Lee, could perhaps deliver this joke in a routine and get a laugh by being completely incongruous with his style and past material.

And herein we see the building blocks from which any sophisticated professional comedy routine is built. By layering several different strands or ironic subversion, a good comedian can begin to make a routine more complex and often more than just the sum of its parts to boot.

In this case, Jim is taking the four main premises listed above, layering them and trying to find the sweetest spot of subverted expectation for each. (something which usually takes a great deal of skill and experience at this level)

He mentions the fact that his jokes incite outrage in a certain section of society because this helps to strengthen one of the strands of irony with which he is playing. The fact that he also does so in a boastful tone is itself a subversion, it is understood by the audience that he does not/should not be proud of being merely offensive and as such we have yet another strand of irony thrown into the mix.

You know how better music tends to have more and/or more complex musical things happening at once? It is the same with comedy. The more ironic threads a comedian can juggle around coherently, the more sophisticated and adept their routines could be considered to be.

Naturally as with music there's no accounting for taste as you say. Some people simply can't get past a style or associations of a given musician or song (or painting or whatever).

But dammit Jim is really one of the greats right now. Like him or lump him, the dude is pretty (deceptively) masterful at his craft.

There are at least 4-5 major threads of irony built into this bit and countless other smaller ones besides. He dances around and weaves between them like some sort of comedy ballerina. Every beat has been finely tuned over months of gig's (and years of previous material) to strike the strongest harmonies between these strands and probe for the strongest sense of dissonance in the audience. Not to mention, tone of voice, stance, timing etc.

I think Ahmed is basically terrible too, but it is because the jokes lack much semblance of complexity or nuance. Jeff Dunham's material in general feels extremely simple and seems like it uses shock as a mere crutch, rather than something deeper and more intelligent.

Taste is taste, but I feel one can to a reasonable extent criticise things like the films of Michael Bay, or the music of Justin Beiber for being objectively shallow by breaking down their material into its constituent parts (or lack thereof).

Likewise one could take the music of Wagner and while not enjoying the sound of it, still examine the complexity of it's composition and the clear superiority of skill Wagner had over most of this peers.

I guess what all this boils down to is, Jim seems to me to be clearly very very good at what he does (as he ought after all these years). Reducing his act to mere controversy feels a lot like accusing Black Sabbath of just making noise and using satanic imagery to get attention (or insert other less out of date example here).

The jokes were never at the expense of victims, they are at the expense of our expectations. He makes his own true feelings on the matter abundantly clear towards the end of the section.

As as he says himself his job is to say funny things, not to be a social activist.

I take no issue with you not liking it, but I do take issue with the suggestion that it is somehow two dimensional, or for that matter using controversy cheaply.

Offensive initial premises are some of the most ironically rich in comedy. It's like deliberately choosing the brightest paints when trying to create a striking painting. Why would you avoid the strongest materials because some people (not in your audience) find the contrast too striking?

Eh, much love anyway. This was more an exercise in intellectual masturbation than anything else. Not that I didn't mean all of it sincerely.

This clip from Spinal Tap is apropos, because it's a lampoon of the Monkees video, but they were also lampooning Maiden, Sabbath, Priest, Saxon, Randy Rhoads, Ian Gillan, etc: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-BYzaDwNoE

This is an interesting interview with Bruce Dickinson of Iron Maiden, because it addresses a rumor that they had walked out of Spinal Tap because they believed the band was making fun of them (which was untrue): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1022475/He-aint-heavy-hes-captain----Iron-Maiden-rocker.html

It's important to note that the members of Spinal Tap were all musicians and played their own music from the get go, whereas the Monkees only recorded their vocals and had other people play the instruments. Of course, in time the Monkees learned to play, even if there was so much wasted recording time they had to bring in other musicians to fill in. They eventually improved enough to play live shows with their own instrument play.

I gotta do my best to defend the Monkees, Iron Maiden, and Spinal Tap, because they ARE all great acts and entertainers. I say ARE because, as of 2016, The Monkees, Iron Maiden, AND Spinal Tap are all touring to this day. Not together, of course. That would be too awesome.

i know you dig the metal,and these guys are my first love,first concert,first time smoking weed:
http://videosift.com/video/the-re-imagining-of-black-sabbaths-war-pigs

sabbath fan?
i know we are from the same generation,so you may enjoy this:
http://videosift.com/video/the-re-imagining-of-black-sabbaths-war-pigs

http://videosift.com/video/the-re-imagining-of-black-sabbaths-war-pigs

cuz:sabbath

OK, didn't know that food restrictions were abolished in the new testament. I guess I have to drop that argument. I'll stick with the mixed fabric one though. Since I'm certain she served a person wearing mixed fabric at some point...clearly we should stone her.

I have been taught that 'treat others as you would have them treat you' was considered the most important teaching BY Jesus (not just the most important teaching OF Jesus), yet these people are doing the exact opposite, by trying to outlaw any form of Sharia law while also trying to codify this 'Christian belief' as law. That just being one in an endless list of attempts at legislating (their narrow idea of) 'morality' or pure religious, completely non moral ideas (I'm thinking 'blue laws' here).
On that note, I always found it odd that so many Christians are so insistent on 'keeping the Sabbath holy', but always forget that the Sabbath that refers to is the Jewish Sabbath (the commandment was for, and given directly to the Jews, no?).
That means they're all doing it wrong....
...but what do you expect from a group that chants “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them." while bowing in front of statues and stained glass likenesses of people, places, and things?