Please don't count my lack of condemnation in this instance as an endorsement. I am sure there is plenty to call Jim Bakker on. I know he did some very despicable (and illegal) things in the 80s and 90s. He supposedly repented of them but I haven't investigated to see whether that is true or not. I definitely wouldn't trust his theology after watching this video.

The disturbing nature of the video is a phenomenon we in the church call "Charismania". It comes from the charismatic church, which has largely become apostate from biblical Christianity by embracing experience over truth. Many of them do nothing else but follow around people like Rick Joyner to hear tell of some new vision or to have a supernatural experience in one of his meetings. I know you don't believe in the supernatural, but they are having a supernatural experience when you see them flop all over the place and jerk spasmodically. It's a real experience but it isn't from God.

I would never recommend anyone listen to anything like this. Instead, people need to systematically learn the bible for themselves so they can evaluate these sorts of claims and recognize them for what they are.

Read it, it said almost exactly that.

"The entire religion of Islam is simply the violent ideology of a sixth century despot masquerading as a religious leader, which justifies endless war against anyone who opposes it and calls for the murder of unbelievers and apostates.
The truth is Islam is not like any other faith. It is the religious equivalent of fascism, and just because the followers of this savage belief were not the killers in this instance does not make them blameless.....
....Those who follow a violent religion that calls on them to murder us can not be surprised when someone takes them at their word and responds in kind."



He clearly says ALL who follow Islam. He says they are all fanatics. His speech did not include the words homosexual, Jews, free speech, or woman, you added that in it's entirety.

The dumb lie that no one condemns the destructive parts of islam is ludicrous. People are lining up to shoot Muslims over these usually ignored parts of the Koran, not egg them. Christianity has all the same requirements to murder non believers and apostates, the same violent prescriptions against women's rights, Jews, Homosexuals, atheists, inpious people, nonchristian people living where they want to, etc. and has actively done so for centuries, and it creates plenty of viciously violent fanatical terrorists too, obviously. Why does he not attack them as well?.....hmmmm.....since these related religions share so much of their doctrine, what's different about the average worshipper....hmmmmmmm......just can't put my finger on it.

Dubai & the UAE:
Shari'a
Torture
Slavery
Homosexuals, adulterers and apostates can be stoned to death.
Abortion, blasphemy, public displays of affection, premarital sex, all illegal and punishable by flogging.
Domestic violence against women is legal.

Qatar:
Shari'a
Sodomy, extramarital sex, alcohol consumption, blasphemy, apostasy, proselytism all illegal and punishable variously by flogging or imprisonment.

Kuwait:
Blasphemy, homosexuality, transgenderism, public displays of affection, eating or drinking in public during ramadan, alcohol, pornography and 'sending immoral messages' are all illegal.
Domestic violence and marital rape is legal.

Indonesia:
Islamist violence against religious minorities is widespread.
Muslims are pushing hard to criminalise homosexuality.
Female applicants to the military and police are subjected to 'virginity tests'.
Shari'a in Aceh province includes the flogging of homosexuals among its atrocities.

Tunisia:
Homosexuality and blasphemy are illegal.
Persecution of the LGBT by both government and private groups is common and increasing.

Mali:
~90% prevalence of FGM
Half the country under islamist control, with all the oppression, murder, torture and rape that implies.

The website may be biased, but the polls listed are world recognized polls that are mostly above reproach. Christianity is not at the table on this, nobody is saying that there aren't wackos involved in any religion, but realistically how many christian holy war incidents can you list in the last 20 years? I mean real incidents, not just some random guy doing one thing to a doctor or clinic, but a group of holy christian fighters blowing up swathes of people or beheading them. It's not in the same ballpark, in fact it isn't the same league, or sport.

As far as US international policy goes, we do stupid shit a lot of the time. Other times we get dragged into shit because people complain if we don't. Personally I wish we would cut our defense budget in half and tell the rest of the world to go pound sand when they ask for help, but again it is not the issue of discussion we are looking at.

The issue is whether or not Islam, due to the nature of it's teachings, promotes certain things that lead to war and/or brutal acts. The fact is that it does, assuming you follow the tenets laid forth in the Koran and other works, such as the Sunnah and the anecdotes of the 12 Imams.

What other religion currently follows these tenets in it's religious laws?

- Leaving Islam is a sin and a religious crime. Once any man or woman is officially classified as Muslim, because of birth or religious conversion, he or she will be subject to the death penalty if he or she becomes an apostate, that is, abandons his or her faith in Islam in order to become an atheist, agnostic or to convert to another religion.
- If a person has never been a Muslim, he or she can live in an Islamic state by accepting to be a dhimmi and pay a Jizyah tax. They cannot practice their religions openly and they also do not have the same rights and legal protections as Muslims.
- Death penalty for Homosexuals
- Numerous women's rights violations and restrictions
- Child marriage
- Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims. It is only very recently that it has started to be redefined by a small amount of Muslims as being possible to be non-violent in nature.

As it stands, Islam is not a religion of peace but of strife. Unless you are a casual follower, you will be trying to promote tenets of this religion either through non-violent or violent ways. As we can see around the world and even through the events of the Arab Spring, the violent ways are far more likely.

What is love? Baby don't hurt me. Don't hurt me, no more.

Pfft. Reality. We can't even prove it's real ∴ stone the apostates!

As Hitch once said. Even if you could prove the existence of a god in the vague deist/pantheist sense you'd still have almost all your work still left to do to prove that your particular invisible skyman, who is inexplicably especially interested in what occurs in your bedroom (pervert imo), is THE ONE.

@newtboy
"i know you are but what am i i"?

that had me cackling like a loon.bravo my friend.

please understand guys my comment is in reference to this particular thread,not any previous private or otherwise.

my commentary was also tongue-n-cheek and not to be taken too seriously.
i was poking the hornets nest...like a boss..who also happens to be a dick.

please forgive.

as for conflicting private to public messages.
well..that would infuriate me as well newt.you wont get an argument from me on that point.
that speaks to a persons character and integrity and explains a ton in regards to your attitude towards @chingalera.

our integrity is all we have.
when you take away everything,the only thing left we have to trade is our word.
our honor.
our respect for another human being.
when we lose that trust....we lose everything.

i do not know the particulars on how you all conversed in private.its none of my business and not my place to judge.

but if what you are saying is true newt (and i have no reason to believe it isnt.there is a past precedent in that regard) then i have to ask @chingalera why?

why say one thing in private and then another in public?
that is so disengenuious and un-necessary my man.
you make good solid points..often,and often i agree with them.
so why would invalidate them by interacting with such duplicity?

you cant call out newt for disregarding or dismissing your points because it was YOU who invalidated those points by your interactions with him.

and you know this.
dont act like you dont because i know your smarter than the average bear.so dont insult my intelligence by feigning innocence.

you owe newt an apology.period.

and dont prove @VoodooV right.we both were there when you flamed out and it was ugly.
and you made it ugly by taking it personal.
i never judged you for that..still dont.
but that does not mean i condoned how you played that closing scene out.
real people had real feelings hurt...including you.

now i realize this thread is destroyed and i dont even know who i need to apologize to.
so...
to the original poster:i am truly sorry for this tragic hi-jacking of your thread.

but it appears necessary.

@chingalera i realize that much of what you do is to shock people out of complacency.
to get them to perceive a situation with different goggles.
many times the weapons you use are confrontational language and a persistence that rivals the most glorious case of OCD.

those intentions are noble.
i agree and am of a similar mindset.this is probably why i can read choggie-speak with little trouble.

i understand what you are trying to do.

but how can you expect someone like @newtboy to listen to anything you have to say when you cant keep even basic correspondence open and honest?
it invalidates everything you attempt from then on out.
your words have to have the weight of your integrity behind them for them to have ANY impact.
you lose that and your words become dust.

sounds like you will have to work to gain the respect from @newtboy.i wish you well in that endeavour.

please understand i consider you a friend @chingalera and hearing this has upset me a great deal.

and @VoodooV,
you may be right brother.i do not know what the future brings.hopefully ching will prove you wrong.i know he could if he wanted.

but i disagree with keeping the riff raff out.
i dont mind confrontation or arguments.in fact i LOVE them and @chingalera has a talent for poking the hornets nest and shattering the monotone-vanilla-circle-jerk-clones into a frenzy.

and that my friend..is a good thing.

@chingalera keeps the locals buzzing,constantly challenging pre-concieved notions and ideologies and i love that fucker for that.he keeps this site interesting.his antics bring lurkers to actually comment/post and others who usually side-line to jump in.

all good things.

but...
i cannot abide the darker side.
the hurtful side.
maybe i am being naive'....i always see redemption for those who the entrenched masses see as unredeemable.i always feel i can save those who are truly lost.

i always see the human first and the actions last.

so you may be right.i just hope you are wrong.
maybe this thread will impact my friend and remind him we are all humans.

i dont know.........
i hope though...
i hope.

@ChaosEngine again,as i told newtboy,no argument here.
hopefully this derailed thread has cleared some air and brought the things to the table that needed to be discussed.

which from my viewpoint is about integrity.
you cant admonish people for being egocentric and then turn around and be egocentric yourself.
it weakens the very position you were trying to make in the first place.(ching,not you CE).
it is hypocritical.

i am a dissident.
a radical.
a subversive.
even to the church i am an apostate.
so i understand @chingalera on a certain level.he has never treated me other than a friend and compatriot.so it pains me to see how he deals with those he disagrees with,and just how far he will take a story to a painful conclusion.
this does not give be joy or pleasure.

he is a righteous dude.passionate,sensitive and creative and has soooo much to offer.
im sorry ya'all didnt get to see that side of him.
but maybe thats on him,because you all should.

there is a reason he has been invited back multiple times and its not because he whined about it but rather he truly is an exceptional human being.

maybe he should show that side more.
takes honesty and courage,but that boy has a huge capacity for that.

@chingalera
balls in your court brother.
what ya gonna do?

*note* for all those who read to this point.
cookies and milk will be served in the back storage room.
free fondlings for the ladies.
dont forget to tip your bartenders and waitresses!

Well, the scripture predicts an apostate and fractured church in these times, so what you are seeing is consistent with the bible. The divisions that you see though are steeped in minor doctrines; what is considered orthodox to the faith (the life death and resurrection, the trinity etc) has nearly universal agreement going back to the early church.

I stand by my comment. You don't need to wait and see what life under a theocracy will be like, all you need do, instead of being a pedant, is go to any muslim country where you think you would be free from their religion of "peace," and live there. Alternatively continue to bury your head in the sand, and hope that when islam has the majority, they will be as tolerant to woman, homosexuals, other faiths, apostates, and western philosophy as you naively believe.

I think there is some definite hyperbole in your statement but I agree with what you've said on the main. Christians are called to be good stewards and we have largely ignored that command. As a former hardcore environmentalist I have a first hand understanding of what the tension is on either side. On one hand, the thought process behind the environmental movement is that this is the only Earth we have, and we must zealously protect its treasures because they cannot be replaced. Once they're gone, they are gone forever. On the other hand, the thought process behind more than a few Christians is that this Earth was given to us by God, and we have dominion over it. There is no reason to worry about destroying it because God Himself will be destroying it upon the second coming of Christ. The Earth will then be recreated and it will be overseen by God going into eternity.

These points of view are exactly contrary to one another and can hardly be reconciled. For the Christian, the tension the bible gives us is between steward and subdue. We are not only instructed to be good stewards, but also to subdue the Earth. Environmentalists hate the very thought of that and would prefer that human interference in natural affairs would approach zero. In the extreme of environmentalist thought, human beings are entirely expendable and should be culled until they do not significantly impact the biosphere. This is of course is entirely foreign to the mind of the Christian, who understands that the very point of the Earth is to be a habitation for human kind. Christians on the main are much more interested in the welfare of other human beings rather than animals and see animals as expendable. An animal has no eternal destiny spoken of in the bible, but human beings do.

As to where I stand, I care about animals and the environment. The issue of global warming is irrelevant to me; it's a doomsday scenario with no teeth. Even if it is somewhat true, it is not how the world is going to end. But I do care and so do many Christians. I don't think we should just run roughshod over this world and inflict undue suffering on creatures to exact some kind of profit. Rather, I think we should intelligently manage our resources and distribute them equitably. I think we could probably learn a lot from the Indians who managed to live harmoniously with their environment. On the other hand, I am not against drilling or logging or anything else that environmentalists hate, within reason. Unfortunately, human beings are not reasonable creatures; they are sinful and greedy to exploit anything they can for personal benefit. There is irrational hatred on both sides, and they are both being played by the adversary. I know people on the inside of the environmental movement and the infighting that goes on because of the gigantic egos and hypersensitivity is almost comical. Most seem to be in it for their own glory and they get in the way of anyone who actually wants to make a difference.

Christians should be setting the example but some of what you're dealing with isn't born again, spirit filled people, but apostate, carnal Christianity. Around 80 percent of the country professes to follow the Savior, but when you ask very specific questions like are you born again, justified by grace, etc the number goes down into the 30's. This isn't an excuse but it is the reality.

The door is open.

Thanks.

Anyway, I think it is foolish for anyone to say that god does not exist and they know it. But, god could mean so many things. All I know is that a bunch of dudes wrote the Bible based on older stories. It is man made, there may be some truth to it but there is some truth to everything. The kind of fascism hypocricy that today's extremist republican christians exhibit disgusts me. They would let rich, corrupt motherfuckers, manipulate them for their own gain and throw them from a plane. Their perception of reality is so completely bent by right wing think tanks and corporatism that they live in some sort of Christian inspired DaDa universe while the rich send their zombie minds to the polls to vote with their manipulated hearts and steal every last penny from their coffers as they self willingly turn a blind eye.

Well, in this context God means the being that created the Universe. The scripture claims to be revelation from this God, in the person of Jesus Christ. God says we have all sinned and are accountable to Him for our sins, but He sent a Savior who paid the price for our sins so we could be forgiven and have eternal life with Him. Jesus says everyone who comes to God must go through Him:

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

So, God could be many things, but there is only one way to know God according to Jesus. So, it's not something you can just pick and choose from. If Jesus wasn't raised from the dead, none of it is true. I have found His claims to be true.

I can't speak for your impressions of Christians as seen through the lens of our current culture, but seen through the lens of society at large Christians have been a force for good. Before the welfare system was created, the church in America was providing the social safety net, and still does in a number of ways. They're the ones running the charities, food banks, youth centers, blood drives, homeless shelters, etc. Look in any community, you will undoubtedly find Christians taking care of the poor and doing good works. I'm not saying there are no secular charities, food banks, etc, but this is something the church is well noted for.

There is some truth to what you say. Christians are not perfect, and unfortunately in the western church this sometimes becomes very apparent. You do not usually see this kind of behavior from Christians in countries where there is some cost to becoming a Christian. When there is no cost to following Christ, the church becomes lazy and apostate, as you see today in America. A good percentage of American Christians probably are not saved. This isn't though a reason to reject Jesus. He in fact predicted this behavior from Christians in Matthew 24. It is simply that we are not following His ways that you see this kind of behavior.

Question: Do you have any church background or were you raised in a secular home?

• because i've done pretty decent research on what they have to say and it's almost entirely and demonstrably horseshit (that's a scientific term)

• my agreeing with them isn't particularly important because what they say is commonly if not always outside their area of expertise (icke's area of expertise is football, chopra is technically a medical doctor, and haramein's is, well, nothing). because of this their understand of their "proof" is painfully poor and their conclusions from their proof is laughable. and as i like to say, even if they are right, the method that got them there was wrong (so to speak).

• they do seem to be crazy people who's insanity infects others. SO many people buy into this kind of wishful thinking and i think it's dangerous and damaging to the intellectual process and infrastructure we've spent so long building. it's baseless new age bullshit perpetrated by charlatans.

• babies and puppies are delicious, i don't know what's wrong with you.

• the blanket statement is due to most/all of these ideas having been completely discredited.

• i don't care what you call yourself or them but they are saying things that are untrue. if they were just making up a new mythology that didn't try to have any basis in science or facts then i wouldn't care but they pretend that certain theories mean things when they don't understand the theories in the first place.

• it can be discussed but in that discussion, like this one, it can be dismissed pretty quickly.

• i don't know anything about your "faith" so i can't really comment on it but if you're telling people your faith is an objective truth then we have a problem.


to be clear, i have seen the movie. i know who this kid is and i've seen his other movies (one i liked). just because he spent a lot of money on his informal research does give credence to said research. by volume, i could probably find more information on this type of nonsense than the science they're supposedly basing these ideas on. AKA there is SO much of this garbage out there.



>> ^enoch:

>> ^kir_mokum:
anything that takes deepak chopra, nassim haramein, and david icke seriously is not worth paying attention to.

i wasnt going to comment but curiosity has gotten the better of me.
why would you state that with such authority?
because you disagree with those people?
find their theories to be suspect?
are they crazy people whose insanity may infect others?
do they eat babies and kick puppies?
why the blanket dismissal?
because one is a spiritualist who has a different way of approaching the human condition?
or that another has wild conspiratorial theories?
does that invalidate them from participating in discussions on what we should do?
and if that is the case..
what about me?
i am a man of faith.everything i do and say is born from my faith.
yet the form my faith takes would make me an apostate and i would have been executed only a few hundred years ago.
does me being a man a faith invalidate my opinions?
the man who made this movie is from the gamble family.the proctor and gamble family.
he spent his wealth on researching and discovery and made a movie revealing his conclusions and possible solutions.
the movie has a very humanist philosophy.
and he uses many many people to help express what he sees as an end game with global elite to control us.chopra and icke are only one of many.
i guess i just dont understand absolutist thinking.
chopra and icke?
well it must be about a. b. or c. and therefore should be ignored.
that just seems so.......limiting......to me.
i found some of the claims in the movie to be questionable and other things i agreed with wholeheartedly,but i have to give gamble credit for putting his ideas out there.
that takes balls.

>> ^kir_mokum:

anything that takes deepak chopra, nassim haramein, and david icke seriously is not worth paying attention to.


i wasnt going to comment but curiosity has gotten the better of me.
why would you state that with such authority?
because you disagree with those people?
find their theories to be suspect?
are they crazy people whose insanity may infect others?
do they eat babies and kick puppies?

why the blanket dismissal?
because one is a spiritualist who has a different way of approaching the human condition?
or that another has wild conspiratorial theories?
does that invalidate them from participating in discussions on what we should do?

and if that is the case..
what about me?
i am a man of faith.everything i do and say is born from my faith.
yet the form my faith takes would make me an apostate and i would have been executed only a few hundred years ago.
does me being a man a faith invalidate my opinions?

the man who made this movie is from the gamble family.the proctor and gamble family.
he spent his wealth on researching and discovery and made a movie revealing his conclusions and possible solutions.
the movie has a very humanist philosophy.
and he uses many many people to help express what he sees as an end game with global elite to control us.chopra and icke are only one of many.

i guess i just dont understand absolutist thinking.
chopra and icke?
well it must be about a. b. or c. and therefore should be ignored.
that just seems so.......limiting......to me.

i found some of the claims in the movie to be questionable and other things i agreed with wholeheartedly,but i have to give gamble credit for putting his ideas out there.
that takes balls.

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.

What you're seeing today is an apostate church that has been infilitrated by Satan and has strayed far from the will of God. If any real persecution of the church were to arise, we would probably see that more than a few of those who call themselves Christian would no longer do so, because many do not even understand what it means to be a Christian. So, this modern worship you're talking about with rock music and slick multimedia presentations, isn't really worship at all. It certainly isn't glorifying God. It's not all bad but from what I have seen, a lot of it is in a satanic spirit.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Hey shiny, criticalthud beat me to this point, but isn't modern Christian worship pretty much exactly like this video? That's been my experience playing at many churches. Would this be OK if it was in the name of God?

good one!

In reply to this comment by enoch:
i withheld any comment i might have on this topic to see what reaction this video might incur and in what form.
i was not disappointed.

over the past 30 years we have seen the rise of the fundamentalist christian (there is a reason for that) conversely we have also seen the rise of fundamentalist islam (over a longer period).
there are many factors why this has happened which i will not get into but suffice to say that they exist.there are causality reasons for this rise and those reasons are not contended.

i am a man of faith but my faith puts me in a precarious cross hairs between the religious fundamentalist and the secular fundamentalist (yeah.i used the term.get over it because they exist).
i am reviled and ridiculed by BOTH sides of that equation.so i am in a unique position to comment on both schools of thought because both schools have harassed me.

those who admonish me usually practice a subtle passive aggressive form of rebuke but always with the intention of calling me stupid,unworthy and wrong.veiled insults disguised as a debate or discussion.

a typical discussion with a militant atheist:
"you are a man of faith enoch? wow..just wow.and i took you for a person of some intelligence"
and then they try to smooth over their overt insult by remarking "well,i guess thats your thing but i cant see how anybody with critical thinking skills could be a person of faith"
this is the epitome of sanctimonious self-righteous belief in ones own perfect understanding of everything based on their own limited understanding but they feel perfectly justified to project their own hubris upon me,even when i have not spoken ONE word on where my faith resides.they based their entire understanding on me simply on there formulated creation of their own imagination.

my conversations with a fundamentalist christian/muslims does not fare much better and oftentimes even worse.because i do not give authority to holy writ.this does not mean i do not find wisdom nor a certain poetry in sacred writings but rather through my studies it has become apparent that these books are not only man-made but borrowed from each other.
so i can appreciate the words within for their beauty and poetry (and brutal violence) but ultimately have to disregard the edicts within for the simple fact they are not only incomplete but rife with human corruption.

so the christian fundamentalist will revile me as an apostate or even worse:heretic and condemn me to hell,to be damned for eternity.while this self-righteous judgment is FAR more direct than a militant atheist may treat me,what i find most despicable and cowardly is how a christian will hide behind the bible and actually attempt a false compassion (pray for my soul) while simultaneously revile me as an unclean agent controlled by satan.

i find BOTH these positions weak and pathetic and here is why:
fundamentalism,in any form,is the stagnation of the mind and deadening of spirit.
it hinders our ability to question and wonder and to push the boundaries of our known perceptions.
the fundamentalist is convinced (by whatever means)that they are correct with a certitude that is immovable,unshakable and to even allow the possibility of a contrary ideology (very specific in relation to this conversation) is tantamount to admitting oneself to be../gasp..wrong.

now let me stop here for a moment and ask my atheist friends how my comment has made you feel?
are you getting angry with me? irritated? annoyed?
and if so.why?
have i specifically called YOU out?
no.i have not and the reason is most atheists i have had discussions with here on the sift are NOT militant.they are just atheists.normal regular people without an agenda nor a desire to purge me of my faith.

sam harris is a militant atheist and no matter how he may wish to paint it, his writings define him as such.
his attacks on the religious are painted with such broad strokes as to encompass anyone who may have a modicum of faith.he may attempt to smooth over his rough edges but the core message is still there.
and he also seem to be under the impression (falsely imo) that if everyone abandoned faith that somehow human society would miraculously be a better and more utopian world.
total.infantile.naivete'.
this is the reason hedges calls him out on his fundamentalism.harris tends to ignore not only human nature but the preceding centuries of history and thats why i find his arguments to be lacking.

now please understand i am vehemently against fundamentalism and religion is the main offender without a doubt.so when i call harris out as being a secular fundamentalist i do so with that truth in mind and i believe harris is totally unaware that he could be perceived that way (as revealed by many of his posts).

hitchens had it right from the get-go.
he didnt use that broad brush harris uses but rather was specific in his criticisms and rightly so.he understood the history and theology and exposed the wretched hypocrisy which dwelt in the underbelly of all fundamentalism.he went after the church.he went after those who would pervert the word in order to dominate and control the poor and un-educated and he was vicious in his admonishments.

the bible,torah,quran are all tangible books.doctrine is written down to be read and studied and they SHOULD be discussed and debated and not treated like some sacred cow that is untouchable.hitchens was the master of using the very doctrine put forth by the church (or imam) to eviscerate any argument in favor of said doctrine to expose the utter hypocrisy.

i have read hitchens and harris is no hitchens.