Timothy Treadwell and Steve Irwin.

not really because you can't stop second hand smoke with smoking, whereas you can stop home invasions and bad guys with guns, with guns.

The intentions of most legal gun owners are not malicious in nature. Some are just hobbyists, some just have them for protection from those brandishing (most likely) illegal guns looking to do them harm...there's no way of avoiding those situations. If a bad person, such as the coward that took out the children, has horrible intentions, the only thing you can argue is the ease with which he managed to obtain the weapon. It was obviously too easy for a man with mental disabilities to get them. But with the intentions of killing innocent children, there are a hundred ways to do it without a gun. Would he have gone through more trouble had he not had access to guns? Maybe. Maybe not. But he had those horrible intentions and the capacity to carry them out, and that's the horrendous part of this. It's the part that scares every sane person is: how could somebody want to do that?

The reason why the issue has been shifted from "how could somebody do that?" to the means in which he did it, is because humans like to think they have total control of their environment and a wildcard such as mental insanity scares people just as much as our own mortality. Whereas blaming something tangible is easy because we could "technically" stop it. So we end up blaming things like video games and guns.

Sorry I'm trying to avoid other examples (Timothy McVeigh, etc.) because they are hackneyed, but some of them might give an insight as to the cause and the ends being more significant than the means.

So you're saying that banning all firearms in the USA will decrease the murder rate?
You'll still have a huge black market firearms (which are easy to make from tools from Harbor Freight in your Garage), see Assault Shovel:
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/179192-DIY-Shovel-AK-photo-tsunami-warning

Also 2 of the biggest homicides in the USA were done with no guns at all, see Timothy McVay and Andrew Kehoe.

I'm not a gun advocate at all, but just banning firearms won't "fix" the problem of rampage killers or lower the homicide rate.

Good points. Not that I agree wholeheartedly or at all, necessarily, but you seem congruent in quoting a text. Bibliography isn't stout enough for MLA standards, but I'll let it pass.



Here's what I don't get the most; out of all things you are not supposed to do according to the bible, it seems like homosexuality gets an "unfair" mention. Being that it's only condemned a few times. Now, I know if it's condemned once it might as well be condemned a thousand times, but I just feel that it's slightly coincidental that homosexuality—an act that can actually be repulsive to a non-homosexual or to a homosexual that's ashamed of his/her own feelings—that it is the one touted as the downfall of humanity. I mean there are plenty of ways to sin, why is so much emphasis placed on homosexuality. It just doesn't seem to be congruent with the amount of mentions it has.



Also, as a straight male, I've never had to make a decision in my sexuality. In fact, if anything I'd say it seems out of my control (not my actions but my tastes). So really, anecdotally, I'd say that sexuality is far from being within our conscious control. The problem, it seem, the religious have with that, is it seems to undermine parts of the bible. This, to me, is why it has become such a lynch-pin issue. To admit homosexuality is naturally occurring and against our control, would prove a part, even a small part, of the bible fallacious.

Instead of attacking homosexuality, however, I'd think that Christians would be better off focusing as much on homosexuality as is in the bible—which is very little.>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^VoodooV:
I do have to give the WBC credit for just showing up and credit to Brand for controlling his audience enough to give them a chance to speak.
Anytime you have that chance to at least have a dialog is a win and how one learns.
This just reinforces the absurdity of believing in a god or at the very least having any immutable doctrine of god.
Even if you're at the very least a deist, this idea that you can know precisely what god wants (on BOTH sides of the issue). You don't know that god wants you to hate fags, for that matter you don't know that god wants you to love either.
Even amongst people of the same faith, you can't get anyone to agree on exactly what god is/wants. There is no authoritative source, and that includes the bible and it's multiple versions. There is no empirical evidence either way.
even if you do believe in a god, saying "I don't know" sets you free from any religion or cult like this.
Even if a god does exist and does in fact hate homosexuality and does not want you to be/practice it. He's got an undeniably shitty way of communicating this guideline and why it should be adhered to.
God may be all powerful, but he's shite at communication and education.

That may be true of the various religions, but in Christianity you have near universal agreement on the foundational tenants of the faith, both today and going back to the early church. How you get saved and what God expects you is very well understood and agreed upon by nearly all Christians. Yes, there are differences..some people think baptism is really important, some not so much. Some people think speaking in tongues is important, others not so much. These are all peripheral issues to the heart of the fatih, which is the suffering death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is no confusion in the church as a whole as to how you get saved.
It's also not that God is a bad communicator, it is people are hard of hearing because they suppress the truth:
Romans 1:18-21
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
He gives everyone more than a clue that He is there and what He expects of them, but they harden their hearts to God because of sin.
And far be it from me to defend the WBC, but they have a point about sin. This nation (world) glorifies sin, but sin is what leads people to destruction. If you glorify sin to someone, it is like hating them. Where the WBC goes wrong, and that's to put it mildly, is the negative and judgmental way they present the gospel. This is what scripture says about sharing the faith:
2 Timothy 2:24-26 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.
I think they skipped over these verses when they put together their ministry. They've probably done more in recent times to turn people away from Christ than all the televangelists put together.

>> ^VoodooV:

I do have to give the WBC credit for just showing up and credit to Brand for controlling his audience enough to give them a chance to speak.
Anytime you have that chance to at least have a dialog is a win and how one learns.
This just reinforces the absurdity of believing in a god or at the very least having any immutable doctrine of god.
Even if you're at the very least a deist, this idea that you can know precisely what god wants (on BOTH sides of the issue). You don't know that god wants you to hate fags, for that matter you don't know that god wants you to love either.
Even amongst people of the same faith, you can't get anyone to agree on exactly what god is/wants. There is no authoritative source, and that includes the bible and it's multiple versions. There is no empirical evidence either way.
even if you do believe in a god, saying "I don't know" sets you free from any religion or cult like this.
Even if a god does exist and does in fact hate homosexuality and does not want you to be/practice it. He's got an undeniably shitty way of communicating this guideline and why it should be adhered to.
God may be all powerful, but he's shite at communication and education.


That may be true of the various religions, but in Christianity you have near universal agreement on the foundational tenants of the faith, both today and going back to the early church. How you get saved and what God expects you is very well understood and agreed upon by nearly all Christians. Yes, there are differences..some people think baptism is really important, some not so much. Some people think speaking in tongues is important, others not so much. These are all peripheral issues to the heart of the fatih, which is the suffering death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is no confusion in the church as a whole as to how you get saved.

It's also not that God is a bad communicator, it is people are hard of hearing because they suppress the truth:

Romans 1:18-21

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

He gives everyone more than a clue that He is there and what He expects of them, but they harden their hearts to God because of sin.

And far be it from me to defend the WBC, but they have a point about sin. This nation (world) glorifies sin, but sin is what leads people to destruction. If you glorify sin to someone, it is like hating them. Where the WBC goes wrong, and that's to put it mildly, is the negative and judgmental way they present the gospel. This is what scripture says about sharing the faith:

2 Timothy 2:24-26 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

I think they skipped over these verses when they put together their ministry. They've probably done more in recent times to turn people away from Christ than all the televangelists put together.

Timothy Dalton - underrated.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

This is an email submission request by the creator - very cool video. More details:

The Ancestor is a collaboration between Chinese Takeout and Crazy Lake Pictures, both young production companies forged in the fires of speed-filmmaking challenges. Chinese Takeout members Timothy Hahn – Pixar employee by day, ruthless preditor (producer/editor) by night – and Abraham Dieckman, writer-director of the upcoming sci-fi feature Trash and Progress – recently made a splash on the festival circuit with the animated short film Cadaver, featuring the voices of Christopher Lloyd, Kathy Bates, and Tavi Gevinson. Crazy Lake Pictures accomplices Mike Lavoie, co-executive producer of the acclaimed film Sleepwalk with Me, and Keith Boynton, whose feature film Chasing Home was chosen as the opening-night premiere of the 2012 Gotham Screen International Film Festival, also collaborated on the well-received "Here We Go" music video for Brooklyn-based band The Spring Standards.

The Ancestor is Crazy Lake's second video for Darlingside (after the jaunty parable "Terrible Things"), and the first meeting of the minds between Crazy Lake and Chinese Takeout, though Hahn and Boynton have enjoyed the texture of each other's brains since their days doing improv comedy together at Amherst College. All four men are sensitive film nerds who look forward to many future collaborations.

If Romney did not pay his taxes you can bet bottom dollar that the IRS would all up on him. He is not hiding anything. Its none of our business. The left just wants to get a hold of them to have field day lambasting Rommey. What about the house and senate? Why don't they show theirs? WE all know there is boatloads of corruption there. Surely this would shed some lite on the subject.

You can say all you want about Romney but there is no whores, Lewinsky, Marxists, Anarchists, or any other skeletons in his closet. All you have to his IRS to pick over.

Remember Timothy Geithner? When he was being selected The IRS issue bubbled up and he had to pay back taxes. If this was an issue it would have bubbled up back in the last election cycle.

Harry Reid lied. Once this settles there will be another whopper to distract true issue facing the election. Be fore this was his wife's horses.

What is facing America is JOBS. Who can deliver JOBS.

If you want to lose your job Vote Obama.
If you want to keep you job Vote Romney.


>> ^charliem:

>> ^bobknight33:
OBAMA only wishes he could be involved. But Obama is still a 1%er.>> ^charliem:
....Mitt Romney involved?


OBAMA isnt the one hiding more than 2 years of his tax returns....

Look, Casino Royale showed up twenty years of Bond films to be the mindless derivative drivel that they were.

The film reintroduced the darkness that was at the heart of Bond that hasn't been seen, arguably, since the death of Bond's just-married wife at the end of the highly underrated "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" (which coincidentally had the best soundtrack of all Bond films). That was in 1969.

Some would contend that Timothy Dalton captured the true essence of Bond's dark moodiness in his too-short stint as Bond in The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill - but he had the advantage of actually being able to act, a skill no one could accuse Pierce Brosnan of bringing to the franchise.

I believe that the Bourne films effectively modernised Bond and the franchise was forced to follow, after years of meandering aimlessly with Brosnan whose films retained a misplaced focus on gadgets and 'witty' lines. There is a place for these, but they superseded plot, character and genuine style. Product placement became too much of a cash cow as well (although I hear an agreement has been made to replace Bond's signature martini with Heineken in Skyfall).

Casino Royale returned Bond to his rightful place. Bourne is great, but he's no Bond. Compared to CR, Quantum of Solace was indeed inferior. But Yogi is right - it was way better than every Brosnan Bond film, which were total disappointments to genuine fans.

So there.

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.

I loved this movie, I looooved the games.

I thought Timothy did a wicked job of acting out the role.

Timothy Ferris says it better than I can:

http://youtu.be/vcjykWEO0r4?t=5m15s

>> ^Ryjkyj:
You know my feelings on the subject Shiny, but there's one thing I appreciate about this video: his rant about how the rich are not getting into heaven. I've heard all sorts of different interpretations and people trying to "translate out" their own beliefs in Matthew 19:24, but I just can't see it in any other way than: "If you have it, give it all away. You can't take it with you and we certainly aren't taking it into account when you get here."

Far from bashing Christians (and I know I'm ignorant where the bible is concerned), I agree with and support this particular idea. It frustrates me to know end when I hear people try to rationalize their selfish excess.

The idea of the rich rarely being saved is well supported by scripture. First, I think Jesus couldn't have been more clear about it in Matthew 19:23:

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven"

However, I do not believe this is a condemnation against having wealth in general. Rather, I think is a condemnation against those who use their riches for selfish gain and not for the greater good. This interpretation supported by James 5:1-6

Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days.

Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.

You have condemned and murdered the righteous person. He does not resist you.

It is condemning those rich who have lived in luxury and in self-indulgence, who have gained by cheating more righteous people of their just due. It even rises to the level of murder in Gods eyes, perhaps because of the impact of a poor person losing even a few days wages could be fatal.

This is illustrated even more plainly in the Parable of the Rich Fool

13Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.”

14Jesus replied, “Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?” 15Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.”

16And he told them this parable: “The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop. 17He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’

18“Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. 19And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’

20“But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’

21“This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God.”

God is condemning greed here, and this is something we can see is nigh universal with the rich. Too much is never enough for many of them. But what this is saying is that it is not money itself, it is the love of money that is the issue:

1 Timothy 6:9-10

But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil: which some reaching after have been led astray from the faith, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows

The love of money is a snare and a temptation to people. It is what you can call a false idol, because those who pursue riches cannot serve God:

Matthew 6:24

No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.


It comes down to what you love; God or the world, and whatever you love more, your heart will be in that:

Matthew 6:19-21

Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal

For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also

That's why Jesus posed these two questions:

Matthew 16:25-26

For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?

Steve Jobs is a good example of this. He had about as much money, power, celebrity and accomplishment as you could desire in this life. Yet, what good did his riches do him when it was his time to go? They couldn't keep him alive, and they couldn't insure his eternal future. In the grand scheme of things, they were nothing but a millstone around his neck.

So yes, I think there is clear evidence that scripture condemns the rich, but only the greedy and self-serving rich. Not those who use their wealth for the greater good and not for themselves.

>> ^Bruti79:

>> ^Sagemind:
And then it ate him!

That's exact;y what happened. I believe he was killed by a grizzly bear.


I think you're referring to Timothy Treadwell (& Amie Huguenard).