>> ^shinyblurry:

Yes, there are some exceptions made, such as for self defense. I am not speaking of the law of the land but within the bible.

If the christian bible makes exceptions to "Thou shall not kill" then the distinction is the reader's choice. Many christians believe it is wrong to kill ever, even in self-defense. I tend to hold your view, that the moral justification is relative to the situation.

That's very similar to what Dawkins believes. People follow religious texts when they agree with them and ignore the parts they don't agree with. Would you feel morally justified killing someone for blasphemy or adultery if your god said it's the right thing to do? I doubt it (at least I would hope not).

Discussion about morality is a good thing. People are much more likely to behave morally when they understand why a certain behavior is positive or negative rather than simply being told to do (or avoid) a behavior.

I'll ignore all your bait and just ask you this: tell me how in a concensus based morality anything could truly be right and wrong?

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^shinyblurry:
It is basically just morality by concensus which means that the most reprehensible acts could be ordained as morally good if enough people agreed.
That's always been the case.
Enough people thought stoning people to death was moral, therefore it happened on numerous occasions. Now a majority of us (hopefully) look back and see it at reprehensible. The same is true for death sentences for blasphemy, treating women as second-class citizens, or any number of other behaviors we've "grown out of".
Our collective morality evolves over time (faster in some places than others). I'd say, for the most part, that change has been for the better.

>> ^shinyblurry:
It is basically just morality by concensus which means that the most reprehensible acts could be ordained as morally good if enough people agreed.

That's always been the case.

Enough people thought stoning people to death was moral, therefore it happened on numerous occasions. Now a majority of us (hopefully) look back and see it at reprehensible. The same is true for death sentences for blasphemy, treating women as second-class citizens, or any number of other behaviors we've "grown out of".

Our collective morality evolves over time (faster in some places than others). I'd say, for the most part, that change has been for the better.

1. You didn't answer whether you'd condemn someone's children for their parents' crime. All you did was spout the usual christian creed about fall/redemption, with which I am perfectly familiar.

I don't know what I would or wouldn't do regarding Adam and Eve. I'm not God, and have no idea what He was weighing on the scales. What I am trying to get you to understand is that although we are born in a corrupted world, because of Adam and Eve, we all still have the same chance as Adam and Eve to get it right. So, although we are born in a less ideal world than the paradise they had, we still have a chance which is equal to the pre-fall state of things. We're all still presented with the same choice He offered them, to obey His law, or to try it our own way, with the exact same consequences.

2. You make numerous assumptions about me, and then base your sorry excuse for an argument on them. No, I'm NOT fine with "humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans", and even if I was, it is nothing like an all-powerful, supposedly all-benevolent being punishing all humanity for the "crime" of two people (and for eternity on top of it). And how in hell can you equate "serious crimes" (I imagine mass murder or serial child rape... oh wait, God condones those), with not loving and believing in a hypothetic being? Thought crime much?

How do you propose that criminals should be handled? Should they get a good talking to and sign a paper promising never to do it again? How should a murder be handled, for instance, if someone is clearly guilty?

The sins that you will stand before God for will be your own. You haven't been punished yet, and it won't be for the crimes of Adam, it will be for the crimes of hpqp.

Now there hasn't been a human being who has ever lived who has not broken Gods laws. That isn't the point. It is not so much sinners that get punished, it is unrepentant sinners who love evil who get punished. God forgives sins, but not wicked people. Your crime isn't not loving God so much as it is loving evil more than God. You see, if you knew who God was you would understand that all the good things that have happened in your life came from Him. You don't know how God loves you, or the ways He has shown it to you. You only see this sad characterization you have of God from your uninformed ideas about who He is supposed to be. You've never understand your practical, experiential relationship with Him because you are spiritually blind. God takes care of everyone, the good and the bad. Every good gift is from the Father of lights. You actually do have love for God but you give the credit to other things.

3. Your "Think about it this way" paragraph is a long convoluted way of rephrasing the "mafia boss" tactic that I had already mentioned, also known as coercion. "It's your choice, you don't like the don, you don't respect his authority, fine, you don't have to pay protection money. He's your friend, you know, the whole neighbourhood's friend, but it's okay, it's your choice, friend. He's not going to force you to pay up. ...just don't be surprised when your bistro catches fire and your wife falls off a balcony."

God doesn't create rules to boss His creatures around. If God wanted to rule over His creatures in that way, He would be sitting on a throne on Earth right now and we'd all be groveling before Him. He creates rules because He knows good and evil. He knows which behaviors lead to death and corruption, and which lead to life and perfection. The rules are for our benefit.

Gods rules aren't hard to live by. Don't lie, don't steal, don't murder, dont worship other gods, dont make idols, dont lust, dont covet, dont blasphemy and honor your mother and father. Love your neighbor as yourself.

Here is the one you have a problem with: Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, and all your mind, and all your spirit and all your strength.

What you hate about God is His authority. You enjoy breaking some of those commandments and you resent that you would ever be held accountable for doing so. You enjoy your autonomy to sin. So you refuse to follow that greatest commandment, to love God. You have all sorts of excuses why not, but the real reason is, you don't want to stop living life the way you do. You love your sin more than the truth. So you hate God and work dilligently to suppress the truth. Look at your profile on this site..a lot of your work is anti-religious, and specifically anti-christian.

4. If you can't see the internal incoherence of your 2nd point (about the HS) than you are absolutely lost logic-wise. And before saying "you're avoiding the issue!!!", I'm not, the dilemma I posed remained completely unanswered, my question remains the same, scroll up if you've forgotten it.

I believe your question centered on the blasphemy challenge, that since you made a little video saying you denied the Holy Spirit that you had committed the unforgivable sin and could never be saved. That's what I was disputing.

At the time, I thought blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was simply rejecting the Holy Spirit by denying Christ while you were a Christian. Since then, I have found that isn't the case. I have frequently sensed the presence of the Spirit in ex-christians, which confused me for a bit until I realized that although they were done with Christ, Christ wasn't done with them. Meaning, if you ever had the Spirit, nothing that you do will necessarily force Him to leave. Basically, when you believe in Jesus, you receive eternal life, not conditional life, so you could not commit an eternal sin.. The concensus is that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit isn't possible today, that it was only possible specifically against Jesus Himself, when people suggested His power came from demons.

5. I'm guessing that your scripture quoting is a way of say - without committing yourself to it - that those who aren't chosen are going to hell.... including all those who are simply not christian?

I don't believe in predestination for all believers, although I do believe God does have plans for specific people, like His prophets for example.

Also, what is this nonsense of God approving of serial child rape? That is patently false. As far as murder, God has used people to execute His sovereign will. That isn't murder. Under the law, the penalty of sin is death. So, His judgement was lawful.

>> ^hpqp:
@shinyblurry
Can you really blame me for being suspicious that a probie named "shinyblurry", posting a shiny and blurry video with a title stating so seriously "God DOES exist!", but which contained nothing but a pathetic argument from personal experience, was not trying to stir the pot (of a rather atheistic-leaning site) in a trollish manner? But you're right, you're not a troll, you're a fundagelical. I'm not sure which one is less flattering.
And no, there really is no debating you intelligently. Just look at your answer to my questions above:
1. You didn't answer whether you'd condemn someone's children for their parents' crime. All you did was spout the usual christian creed about fall/redemption, with which I am perfectly familiar.
2. You make numerous assumptions about me, and then base your sorry excuse for an argument on them. No, I'm NOT fine with "humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans", and even if I was, it is nothing like an all-powerful, supposedly all-benevolent being punishing all humanity for the "crime" of two people (and for eternity on top of it). And how in hell can you equate "serious crimes" (I imagine mass murder or serial child rape... oh wait, God condones those), with not loving and believing in a hypothetic being? Thought crime much?
3. Your "Think about it this way" paragraph is a long convoluted way of rephrasing the "mafia boss" tactic that I had already mentioned, also known as coercion. "It's your choice, you don't like the don, you don't respect his authority, fine, you don't have to pay protection money. He's your friend, you know, the whole neighbourhood's friend, but it's okay, it's your choice, friend. He's not going to force you to pay up. ...just don't be surprised when your bistro catches fire and your wife falls off a balcony."
3. Another assumption about me: "I don't like God". WRONG, I don't believe in god(s); what I don't like is people indoctrinating their kids with lies and fear about supernatural non-entities, killing/hating/preaching at others, keeping science and moral progress back, basing laws and morals on the thoughts of tribal desert-dwellers, etc etc.
4. If you can't see the internal incoherence of your 2nd point (about the HS) than you are absolutely lost logic-wise. And before saying "you're avoiding the issue!!!", I'm not, the dilemma I posed remained completely unanswered, my question remains the same, scroll up if you've forgotten it.
5. I'm guessing that your scripture quoting is a way of say - without committing yourself to it - that those who aren't chosen are going to hell.... including all those who are simply not christian?
Yes, I "ran away" from the "debate", in order to retain my sanity and occupy my time more productively. (only reason why I'm answering you now is 'cause I'm procrastinating something I don't feel like doing... mmm, idleness is such a lovely workshop, I wonder whose is it? <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/wink.gif"> )
As for "you never provided an intelligent or comprehensive position..most of it was simply rooted in your amatuer understanding of scripture.", let me simply quote yours truly:
Preach on, brotherman. It's a sick kind of irony to do the very same thing you're accusing someone else of doing, especially whilst doing said accusing.
p.s.: Satan says "Hi"

That's a laugh..the first thing you did in our "debate" is try to argue I am a troll. Then we had a little contentious back and forth in which my answers were perfectly adaquete..the problem was that you copped out and ran away. Here is our final exchange:

"@shinyblurry

I was going to leave you in the metaphorical pit of self-contradiction and nonsense you had dug yourself into, but then you had to go insult my eloquence... jk, I was going to address your answers anyway:

Would you condemn and punish someone's child for something their parents did? Why should anyone respect - much less worship - a being whose moral standards are far inferior to those of the worst among us humans (or "sinners" as you call us)?

2. "Special Revelation"... and yet it is those who use reason and evidence who are "arrogant", or have a "fevered ego", right? But let me try to grasp this "Holy Spirit" thing once and for all:

Basically, a Christian cannot deny the HS, otherwise he was never a Christian? But one can only reject the HS if they have it, i.e. if they are a Christian... do you see where this is going? Moreover, this suggests a deterministic outlook: some have been chosen, the rest can suck it (you did not answer the part of my question which asks what happens to those that are not "chosen").

So God makes an exception, giving them the knowledge of good and evil only so that they do not obtain the knowledge of good and evil... Even if this fantastic extrapolation of yours was not a direct insult to the textual integrity of the Bible (which is about the only integrity that thing has got), it would only confirm my point vis-à-vis God/religion's reliance on blind obedience.

Which brings me to another tasty tidbit of yours:

He doesn't coerce your love, but he will let you reap the consequences of the evil that you do [...]
Mafia boss says: you don't have to pay up, but I'll beat the shit out of you if you don't.

Does the irony escape you?"

My reply:

1. You're still not getting it. Before Adam and Eve sinned, they were spiritually perfected. When they sinned their spirit became corrupt and could no longer be in the presence of God. This is why Creation fell. Human nature has been corrupted since then. This is why we live in a fallen world. Instead of starting over, God bore all of this out with us. He had a plan to restore Creation, which He did by sending His Son to die for our sins. Jesus is the name under which man is reconciled back to God and spiritually perfected, so we can again live with God. It's not about punishment, it's about restoration.

You say it's immoral for God to punish people..I'll explain why it's not but first, lets examine your hypocripsy here. You're an atheist so you believe death is the end. Yet, I bet you adovocate the death penalty or life in prison for serious crimes. You're perfectly fine with humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans, which is the same as God punishing someone forever, because if this life is all we have then a death sentence is forever. Life in prison is just as good. Yet, you somehow have a problem with God punishing people, who as our Creator and the moral authority not only has the perrogative, but indeed would be immoral if He didn't do so.

Think about it this way. You don't like God and you don't respect His authority. You certainly don't want to live forever with Him. So, though He loves you and wants to share eternity with you, He will allow you to make your choice as to whether to love Him or not. He's let you know the consequences over and over again, mostly recently through this dialogue. You are choosing directly to be seperated from God, indeed you have made it a mission to spread your ignorance about Him. So why then should you be surprised when you earn the reward you had hoped for? It's entirely moral, and entirely your choice.

2. It doesn't suggest anything of the sort. Only a Christian could receive the Holy Spirit, they are saved. A person who professes a belief in Christ yet does not accept His Spirit has committed blasphemy against the Spirit. They are not saved. A person who does not believe in Christ will never receive the Spirit, nor can they even perceive it, so they cannot commit blasphemy against Him. This is the meaning of the passage:

"Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS."

3. What was your question?

You never answered to any of this. This was your final reply:

Shiny quoted conserva-facts-don't-affect-me-pedia.com; conversation ended. You fail.

You used the excuse that I had quoted conservapedia about zooasterism to Enoch to run away from our debate. So please get off your high horse..and you never provided an intelligent or comprehensive position..most of it was simply rooted in your amatuer understanding of scripture.


>> ^hpqp:
You'd really crack me up if I didn't know you were dead serious. Remember our very first debate Mr Shiny? The one under you first sifted video? There was no quoting Leviticus, instead I provided serious questions to the ideology stemming from the Creation and Fall myths, to which you were unable to adequately reply. As for spewing Bible verses, it's a two-way street, although you definitely take it more than anyone else here, and with the added stupidity of actually thinking that an ancient collection of ideological, mythological and historical texts - compiled and edited over hundreds of years - is actually the divinely inspired word of your sky dictator. So yeah, sometimes myself and others will quote contentious scripture just to remind you that it's only manmade text (although even you go to some lengths to try and make the worst of it make sense... (re: your attempt at rationalising having to marry one's rapist)).
Most people who tried to have an intelligent debate with you here have given up. If you still can't understand why, maybe you should pore over your responses to people's questions and have a long, hard think (yes, I know that's hard).
Yours satanically,
Lucy Furr
edit: I missed part of your comment when first responding... nobody "created" us, shiny. Most secular humanists and atheists come to the conclusion that religion is bullshit all by their lonesomes, usually in their childhood or teens.. you know, when rational thought starts to outweigh parental authority. While it's nice to have speakers defending reason with arguments we could only dream of formulating so eloquently - speakers who certainly helped some who were already in doubt to make up their minds - it's not as if one needs a prophet. Maybe one reason why you have the impression you're always debating Dawkins and Hitchens is because their arguments are some of the most salient against religion, arguments that have been made since the ancient Greeks btw.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I already told you, if you go to the minute mark that I provided you will find someone talking directly about it. If you don't want to do that, or you don't believe the person in the video, that's your problem. It doesn't change the fact of what Dawkins said.
As far as arguments, I have many. I never get that far with you though. Your idea of a rational debate is to quote contentious verses in Leviticus. If you want to talk about one trick ponies..
I don't want to generalize atheists but the fact is dawkins and hitchens created a lot of you, and I feel often times I am debating them instead of the person I am talking to. In any case, it doesn't matter..I was just somewhat amused that you seemed to think that atheists are never illogical or say anything stupid.
>> ^hpqp:
Pretty rich coming from someone whose whole argument boils down to "personal revelation nananana!!!" and "God/the Bible says it so ITS TRUE!!!" All your gross generalisations based on personal experience (which could very much be made up for all we know) are but chaff to the wind, shiny.
And no, I'm not going to sit through 1h20 to try to find something that you claim Dawkins said; it's your evidence, you provide it.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yes, atheists actually do construct arguments which merely appeal to authority and engage of all sorts of logical fallacies, all the time. You seem to be under the illusion that atheists are in general more intelligent than the average person. I debate atheists all the time all over the internet and I can safely put that theory to rest for you. It's more that atheists are completely blinded by their certitude and think that everything they say is just so forceful and compelling, like they are the sole possessors of logic and reason in the world. After you speak to few hundred or so you start to see the group think they all share and that most of their ideas are originating from a Dawkins or a Hitchens. Many of you just parrot the things they say in their debates almost word for word.
As far as your evidence, it's buried somewhere in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw
If you go to 1 hour 17 you'll find someone talking about it.
edit; I will admit I speak to some very bright people, people are people after all..but atheism is not an exclusive group of deep thinkers..if you think that you haven't been around the internet lately.
>> ^hpqp:
[citation needed]
This is not the first time you put words in Dawkins' mouth you know.
edit: and even if Dawkins, Hitchens and the FSM all got together to argue for the historicity of Jesus, they would have to bring compelling arguments to the table. Unlike some religious people, atheists don't just go "oh since Dawkins says it it must be true, no need to think/research for myself!!"
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even Dawkins admitted Jesus is a historical figure. There are virtually no historians who support that view, so scratch probably and insert "extremely unlikely".
>> ^hpqp:
Well, considering that the Jeebs is probably a fictional character altogether , it's not surprising that there is differences between the ways different authors imagined him to be.
http://religion.videosift.com/video/Lecture-Examining
-the-Existence-of-a-Historic
al-Jesus
>> ^messenger:
People in power usually do represent God in Jesus' parables. That's why this one seems so odd to me. Maybe I just haven't read enough of them to realize that Jesus himself preached violence against beings other than fig trees. (Mark 11: 12-14)>> ^hpqp:
That nobleman stands in for God/Jeebs in that parable. But you should ask shiny, for him we're all slaves to the all-powerful dictator, only some of us (that is the evil atheists) are rebellious against his power.

Christians judge peoples behavior based on its conformity to Gods laws. We are commanded by God to take a stand against sin and to expose it, where ever it may be. We are not to judge the person, for only God knows the heart, but we are commanded to tell that person about sin, and judgement, and about the salvation of Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 5:11

Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

Matthew 28:19

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

I'll try to break down this video for you, because I think you are ascribing arrogance and judgement to Ray when he is merely following the gospel and trying to save this woman..

First he asks her what happens to someone when they die. She gives an answer about "soul recycling" which establishes that she doesn't know or believe that she will face Gods judgement.

Hebrews 9:27

And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,

Next he asks her if she thinks she is a good person. She states she thinks she is. God says there is no one good:

Romans 3:10

As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one

Romans 3:12

All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one

The reason there is no one good is because of sin. So to show her she is not in fact a good person Ray asks her about sins she may have committed. She admits to lying, stealing, lusting and blasphemy. Ray then informs her that she isn't a good person in light of those sins. She attempts to turn it back around on Ray but never gives an answer as to how she could be good yet guilty of those sins.

Romans 3:23

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Next, Ray asks her if she will be innocent or guilty on judgement day. She affirms innocent. Ray then reminds her of the sins she just admitted to. Again, she tries to turn it around back on Ray but never gives an answer to how she will be declared innocent even though she is admittidely guilty of many sins.

The whole point of what Ray was trying to do was..

A. Establish to her that she is a sinner
B. Let her know she was going to be judged for those sins when she died
C. Let her know the verdict would be guilty without Christ

He wasn't trying to judge her, and said that flat out, that he was incapable of judging her. He also admitted that he was a sinner like her and was not perfect, that Christ was his only way out. I think people are getting offended by Ray when he suggests that this woman isn't a good person, because its the most popular lie that people like to believe. The truth is, no one is good, and everyone is a hypocrite who has never lived up to their own standard let alone the standard they judge other people by. People are not generally good, they are generally sinful. Everything Ray did here was by the book so I can't support your criticism here. I don't know what else Ray has done really..I haven't followed him too closely, but I don't see anything wrong with this.

>> ^enoch:
@shinyblurry.
judgement and discernment are not the same thing in the context you are trying to convey.
and you posted a most excellent verse to make your claim.please reread that verse...nothing about judging but EVERYTHING about patience and careful instruction.
to preach the word you have to understand the word.
ray comfort is clueless as a child when it comes to the word and he should be ashamed of his ignorance.
ambushing this young lady and then hiding behind scripture to defend his vitriol.
it is cowardly and vicious.
and one of the myriad reasons i find ray comfort to be a stellar douchebag of a human being.
at least YOU ask the questions shiny.
you seek to know and i have all the faith that you shall,but i plead with you to not give ray comfort any authority.he is a charlatan who dresses himself up as the faithful.
and yes..i AM judging him.

BLASPHEMY!

>> ^marinara:

http://www.khudipakistan.com/faq/
spreading democracy and western culture into pakistan.
this guy runs a crappy little political organization that purports to save globalism from islamists. Why the hell would you want to save globalism?

At Khudi, we tend to prefer the latter. That’s why we organize conferences and workshops around the country, inviting people from disparate backgrounds to foster a culture of healthy discussion and debate
....
Khudi also runs an inter-university campus magazine, distributed at universities across Pakistan, providing students with a chance to air their views without fear of reprisal.

what an idiot. I read this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2459969.ece
about Maajid's polarizing youth, but apparently his big solution are free magazines and communications workshops.
this is an english man mucking about at politics in pakistan.
he'd do better to spend his time to learn arabic than to convince some rich pakistanis that they should love the west


Right, this 'idiot' clearly doesn't understand the situation as well as yourself.

This British Pakistani born man who spent years working with a major Islamic extremist organization obviously knows nothing about Islamic extremism in Pakistan.

You later deny this, but your snide(but poorly researched) remark about learning Arabic is CLEARLY because you didn't even know Pakistan's national language.

You haven't cared enough to study a thing about Pakistan, but while you snipe away here in ignorance, this man is honestly putting his own life at risk every day for his cause. Go find an online Pakistani paper and follow it's stories. You'll find moderate leaders and activists are regularly murdered. More over, not only are they murdered, but the nations lawyers refuse to prosecute the murderers and instead stand in solidarity with the murders 'bold' stand against blasphemy.

This guy even mentions the grossest such example in his talk, former Primer Minister Benazir Bhutto's assassination, but you again seem too ignorant of anything in Pakistan to grasp the significance.

Stop flooding the thread with unhelpful complaining and find something to support the horrific struggle faced by moderate Pakistani's against the extremists that are killing them every day.

@SDGundamX

I stand corrected. It seems to me to be neither sarcasm nor hypocrisy, but ironic parody of all the (death) threats and "You'll burn in hell"s that people like Condell get for criticising religion. To suggest that he truly wishes harm on others is to miss the style of his comedy altogether. I've watched almost all of his videos, so to me it went without saying, but I understand that someone not familiar with his style could infer what you do.

Also, your comment to @MaxWilder suggests that you didn't get the point about "insulting". What Pat does in his videos is turn the rhetoric of religious fundies and apologists back on them, in this case those who call any criticism of Islam "insult" or "blasphemy" (those two are often used as synonyms by the Islamist defenders).

You ask, "what is the point?" The point is, imo, to encourage non-believers and (eventually) moderate believers not to sit quietly and "take it" when religion tramples all over basic human rights, and then tries to shut up those who call it out for it. Lack of dissent is silent assent. To paraphrase Sagan:

"If we offer too much silent assent about mysticism and superstition [the abuse of human rights]—even when it seems to be doing a little good—we abet a general climate in which skepticism [criticism] is considered impolite [insulting], science tiresome, and rigorous thinking [ethical concerns] somehow stuffy and inappropriate.

*terrible *Fail.

Covering Bohemian Rhapsody is Blasphemy in it's own damn right.

God is the one who holds all the authority. The expert insight I have is called spiritual discernment, and you don't have any. You cannot accept the fact that if the bible is true it means that you are utterly deceived and unable to reason about God. That you reject God out of total ignorance. These truths are spiritually discerned and you don't even know you have one. There is absolute truth, and objective good and evil. Satan rules this world and he has spiritual dominion over anyone who doesn't know God. Satan has legal rights to you because you have rejected your creator. He's in your music, he's in these videos, he is in every lie that has been drilled into your mind about God. That's the bad stuff I am talking about, and I am a witness to this activity. I will continue that witness and pray that you reaize the truth before its too late.

>> ^offsetSammy:
What gives you any authority, moral or spiritual, over me? What expert insight do you have that I don't have? How does quoting verses from the bible make any kind of convincing argument whatsoever?
I just love your threatening tone, as if you've seen the light and have witnessed all the baaaad stuff that happens to those who do not see it. You either have a massive superiority complex, are delusional, or both. I'd suggest you're the one that needs to wake up to his 'wicked' ways. Also, your beliefs are crrrrap! Other than that you're probably a pretty nice guy though (actually not being sarcastic).
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm not trying to win a popularity contest, I am here to save lives. Believe what you will, mock me if you want, but don't pile on more condemnation for yourself.
Galatians 6:7
Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.
People blasphemy against God and get some sort of wicked thrill out of it but I assure you its not worth it. I highly encourage you to have a sense of self-preservation.
>> ^offsetSammy:
I've recently started coming to the conclusion that the old mantra of being respectful of others' beliefs is, as Billy Connolly so eloquently put it, crrrap. It is those very beliefs that start wars, fuel bigotry, encourage tribalism, and foster a mistrust and rejection of science and facts. You believe in a magic man in the sky despite no evidence for it? You want me to believe the earth is only a few thousand years old because you read it in a book, despite every scientific investigation saying otherwise? Your beliefs are laughable and deserve the derision they receive.
That is not to say that you, as a person, don't deserve my respect. Of course we should all be respectful of each others' humanity / existence. We're not all so different, after all. But your beliefs are not you. I'll mock them all I want.

What gives you any authority, moral or spiritual, over me? What expert insight do you have that I don't have? How does quoting verses from the bible make any kind of convincing argument whatsoever?

I just love your threatening tone, as if you've seen the light and have witnessed all the baaaad stuff that happens to those who do not see it. You either have a massive superiority complex, are delusional, or both. I'd suggest you're the one that needs to wake up to his 'wicked' ways. Also, your beliefs are crrrrap! Other than that you're probably a pretty nice guy though (actually not being sarcastic).

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm not trying to win a popularity contest, I am here to save lives. Believe what you will, mock me if you want, but don't pile on more condemnation for yourself.
Galatians 6:7
Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.
People blasphemy against God and get some sort of wicked thrill out of it but I assure you its not worth it. I highly encourage you to have a sense of self-preservation.
>> ^offsetSammy:
I've recently started coming to the conclusion that the old mantra of being respectful of others' beliefs is, as Billy Connolly so eloquently put it, crrrap. It is those very beliefs that start wars, fuel bigotry, encourage tribalism, and foster a mistrust and rejection of science and facts. You believe in a magic man in the sky despite no evidence for it? You want me to believe the earth is only a few thousand years old because you read it in a book, despite every scientific investigation saying otherwise? Your beliefs are laughable and deserve the derision they receive.
That is not to say that you, as a person, don't deserve my respect. Of course we should all be respectful of each others' humanity / existence. We're not all so different, after all. But your beliefs are not you. I'll mock them all I want.

>> ^aaronfr:

Although I applaud her for using comedy as a way to bring the truth out and challenge the status quo (which is what most good comics do), something about this clip bothered me. It had more to do with the crowd than anything. Telling jokes to a room full of stuffy, white people at a dinner party hardly seems like the way to achieve her stated goal of re-training the Islamic fundamentalists. It was more like the audience got a chance to laugh and snicker at jokes about scary Muslims they would be too afraid to tell themselves.


You should see this video then, in which she picks up a sharia law apologist (a women can't do that according to sharia... silly, I know)

I highly doubt that "stuffy white people" are her only audience, but seriously, do you think she could get away with this kind of humour in front of Islamist fundamentalists without being killed? When she says we need to reeducate the fundamentalists in Europe, she means "we" the society, including the "stuffy white people".

As for "snickering at jokes about scary Muslims", a) a non-muslim telling such a joke would make no sense and b) the multiculturalist relativists would be screaming RACIST* and probably suing. Humour is a great way of communicating controversial subjects, and that is one reason why Islam officials are trying to silence its opponents with Blasphemy laws, when the humourists are not simply being attacked/killed by fanatics.

*which is ridiculous because Islam is an ideology, not a race. But a lot of ignorant people here in Europe, on both the right and the left, don't seem to understand that.

>> ^marinara:

the whole narrative of islam is for god to punish (read kill) the unbelievers while Muhammad's followers survive alone.
in christianity, we know that Jesus will judge you.
In islam, those outside islam are ALREADY judged. How could you even have sympathy for someone god is going to destroy in short order?

Say: "O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord." It is the revelation that cometh to thee from thy Lord, that increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. But sorrow thou not over (these) people without Faith.
(surah 5:68)

That is anecdotal, as Christian's have shot abortion doctors and had crusades. What is supposed is not always what is done, and vice versa. Empirical data is what you would need to make a real counter point, and honestly, I think you would find a fair amount of violence embedded in all faiths, as it is really in man.

the whole narrative of islam is for god to punish (read kill) the unbelievers while Muhammad's followers survive alone.

in christianity, we know that Jesus will judge you.

In islam, those outside islam are ALREADY judged. How could you even have sympathy for someone god is going to destroy in short order?

Say: "O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord." It is the revelation that cometh to thee from thy Lord, that increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. But sorrow thou not over (these) people without Faith.
(surah 5:68)