search results matching tag: sermon

» channel: motorsports

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (45)     Sift Talk (1)     Blogs (1)     Comments (201)   

NBA Or NFL

fuzzyundies says...

According to numerous comments, this was from a sermon given in 2010 using an article published in 1999, and the research firm which compiled the stats never released the names. Apparently, in 2013, the stats were debunked.

But it's still so plausible.

Disagreement About Masks at Christmas 2021 in Math Class

School Board Must Resign or be Charged With “Child Porn”

vil says...

Context:

(17 - 18 y.o.) students received a book of writing prompts that included, “Write a sex scene you wouldn’t show your mom,” “write a sermon for a beloved preacher who has been caught in a sex scandal,” and “describe a time when you wanted to orgasm but couldn’t.”

When you are finally comfortable in a relationship

StukaFox says...

Mate, if those two got any closer together, that LIGO would be detecting the birth of a new black hole somewhere in the Sol system.

I used to love Church: a dinner of Taco Bell burritos, a wooden pew, and the word of Christ. Clench, lean 15 degrees to the left, relax your sphincter and PUSH! The silence that is golden will last about 10 seconds before the retching and piling out the doors brings an end to today's sermon. That's when you snatch the collection plate and bolt out the back door.

I lost a major source of income when I became an atheist.

Did you know Taco Bell delivers? At least in Seattle they do. I have to wonder what life choices lead to the terminus of hauling two dollar food between source and the customer 25 miles away. Yeah, that $5 tip will more than pay for gas, upkeep, insurance and oil changes on that riced-out K car you've been driving since The Pet Shop Boys were still popular.

Also, "...blahblah whining and such..." -- look, if I want unfair criticism of a job well-done, I'll ask my clients to pay up. That's primo Gonzo humor you're tut-tutting and you paid exactly nothing to enjoy it. Y'know who else was a cheap ingrate? HITLER! Why ya gotta by like Hitler, Moonsammy -- IF THAT IS YOUR REAL NAME. I have my doubts on this topic, by the way.

Hey, what's Bob up to? I always enjoy a cheap laugh at the expense of the less fortunate.

(seriously dude -- I can hold 1:1 with a Clydesdale for an hour and have enough left in the tank to draw a standing ovation at Centurylink Field.)

moonsammy said:

I don't know why you felt the fart would be the prominent feature of the video. To me, the title only promised the sort of interaction which might feel mortifying in the early passions of young love, but seen within the context of a mature, stable relationship. It may not play well in Hollywood, or apparently Videosift (AHEM SIR), but it's the kind of deep, strong relationship to which we should all aspire.

(having said that, I too have tooted)

When you are finally comfortable in a relationship

StukaFox says...

I WANT MY MONEY BACK!

If there's going to be a fart in a video, I want a pavement-cracking ripper louder than a ship's horn. I want a blast radius. I want weeping men and shrieking women. I want people 200 miles downwind to think Bhopal fucked Chernobyl and the offspring came blasting out of that woman's ass like The Four Horsemen riding out of Hell. I want sermons written about it. I want it commemorated in legends as epic as a Viking saga and as long-lived as The Canterbury Tales. I want it spoke of only in whispers. I want the Alpha Centuri LIGO to peg so hard that the aliens look at it and mutter, "Ohhhhhh, fuck..."

This was none of those.

This wasn't a full-on fart, it was an asterisks on a turd. This was a "tee-hee" fart, not a "OH JESUS FUCK -- EVACUATE THE WEST COAST AND CALL THE ARMY!" butt-blast. I'd be ashamed to call this one of my own; I'd wrap it in a blanket and dump it in front of the SPD station down the street so our Boys in Blue could take one look at it, sadly shake their heads, and forswear their sacred duty by tossing it in a dumpster.

Mordhaus, you promised me a fart video and you gave me two monochromatic outcomes of butter and corn syrup consumption babbling on; waddling parentheses around a feeble "pbt".

SIR, I DEMAND BETTER OF MY FART VIDEOS AND I -WILL- SEE YOU IN COURT!!

(I farted)

Texas man strips down to make a point about vaccination

luxintenebris says...

believe the idea is that all of us do or don't engage in things that we don't necessarily enjoy (or enjoy). either for legality or decency or the stir, it causes...

- breastfeeding
- pistol wearing in town
- hats at weddings/funerals/churches
- shutting off cells at the same and more
- wheels on busy sidewalks
- not heckling the priest's sermon ("YOU SUCK FATHER!")*

some of these are up to the person, some not as bad as others, but common sense SHOULD guide sane people.

'tho if COVID becomes a public health crisis (ala Black Death-esque) they'll find where their freedom meets real oppression (Thyphoid Mary on a large scale).

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2020/youraba-april-2020/law-guides-legal-approach-to-pandemic/

personally, the idea that I could end up killing someone quickly replaced my health concerns. if found someone died because wasn't wearing a mask - would kill me.

so, in short, hope any/or all of these blunts find themselves in a situation where their car won't start. and no one will help them 'til them mask up.

"just need a part!"
"not until you observe our policy of public health! here's a mask...and if you'd put on shoes and a shirt..."

bet they'd do it for their f'n car. but for little bobby or old man Thorney?

...hope a camel w/a huge lip blister kisses them straight on the mouth.

reminds me of a song...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFRDimvVimw

testify.



* Bobcat gag

vil said:

If he is against mandatory masks he is arguing against his own case by pretending to break other mandatory requirements that make sense.
If he is for mandatory masks his (sarcastic?) argumentation style is going to antagonize people who do not already agree with him.
WTF?

If Megachurches Were Honest | Honest Ads

cloudballoon says...

Megachurches are mostly a front for people at the top to fight dog-eat-dog style for money& power, while pretending to ministering (more like administering) the congregation. Too many megachurches' sermons are more like selling snake oils & fear than Jesus' message of peace, love, tolerance, compassion and humbleness and more.

And I'm a 52-times-a-year church going Christian! Just not the dangerous "evangelical" political power-hungry, self-righteous, supremacist kind. OK, ok, hope I'm not... if I do, please hold my feet to the fire, Sifters...

Black murder is normal | Michael Smith | TEDxJacksonville

Trump Threatens to Deploy Military in Response to Protests

newtboy says...

You [redacted] lying waste of skin. That's an outright verifiable lie. The only thing you said that's true is Trump is snot....but that's insulting to snot.

The vandals and rioters have been filmed working with police who not only protected them as they vandalized businesses but directed them on exactly how and what to paint/break so it looks like protesters did it. In one video of many, the white masked vandal started smashing the sidewalk just feet in front of a large police line as they watched until protesters stopped him and shoved him forcefully into the police who only then finally arrested him....or at least pretended to. No word on who he is or with what group, but it's obvious that protesters are doing more to stop rioters than police/Trump's government. In another, a fat white woman is seen painting BLM and other slogans on a building while police watch, they then suggest she add "George Floyd", which she obediently does.

Watch what he personally directed the secret service and military police in DC to do to PEACEFUL PROTESTERS, not a vandal among them, full mounted attack using grenades (flashbangs can kill) rubber bullets, clubs, hooves, boots, and tear gas. Barr, at Trump's order, personally directed them to clear the way for terrified Trump to crawl out of his basement hidey hole just so he could go have a photo op at a closed church (and they are pissed at being a prop for his divisive political ploy), pretending he isn't hiding behind hundreds of armed guards even after removing all protesters from the area, and pretending he regularly goes inside, but we ALL know he doesn't unless the congregation is replaced with cameras and he's the only speaker, giving a sermon on how great he is, better than Jesus.

Trump personally, and his administration, have been clear, clamp down on protesters, dominate them, shoot and arrest them, treat them like the vandals , because it's in his interest to demonize the protesters. He's even toyed with having any that can be identified by any means deemed domestic terrorists and putting them in prison for 10 years. Absolutely zero distinction between the protesters and vandals (who so far those caught on video vandalizing have all been masked whites, likely Trumpsters trying to make the protests turn to riots and blame non whites and democrats for his divisive lack of leadership that has if not caused this situation, at the least exacerbated it exponentially).

Yet more brain numbing, verifiability wrong dumbassery by a Trumptard. Remember last month when your ilk invaded government buildings armed to the teeth? Trump stood with those rioters, even as they burn governors in effigy on the front porch of the governor's mansion, Trump calls THEM patriotic good people, and peaceful protesters in the streets, those are THUGS he wants shot. *facepalm the dumb is getting dumber daily.

bobknight33 said:

Clamping down on rioters is what a government does.

Trump is snot clamping down on protesters.


Yet more fake spin by a Liberal

You Can Make It - Pastor Jim Bakker

AeroMechanical says...

As hilarious as this guy's sermons are, I kind of feel like I shouldn't be encouraging him by increasing his Youtuber points.

Being a man ain't no Joke by TD Jakes

Atheist Angers Christians With Bible Verse

cloudballoon says...

But it's not really solving a problem, is it? If you have a 3rd Testament then people a century later need a 4th Testament to understand the 3rd. It's just endless guessing.

The many confusions & consistencies deal with God's actions toward the peoples of its time. In this video's case, Paul to the Corinthian believers (people-people). My "narrow-minded" guess, is the "women" at the Corinthian church were there not as seekers of the Faith, but as wives just accompanying their husbands, so these females gathered around and started gossiping and various sundry conversations, turning bothersome to the brothers listening to the sermons... so that's why Paul ordered the women silenced. Now, that's MY interpretation, you can argue it's sexist/degrading of me calling the women gossipy (but bear with me for argument sake, because those men at those times are likely sexist!)... but that's one possible scenario. There can very well be other equally (or likely more) convincing scenarios, but only one of them is the truth. But which one is? Who has the authority to know and write down the true case in this 3rd Testament?

People have been discussing for centuries and I don't see the point of reading the Bible literally and try to interpret meanings on these small things. Humans in the Bible all make mistakes. We need to keep on progressing to make the world a better place. That's what Jesus advocated... Picking faults of the people in Bible is useful if we use them as examples of never repeating their faults. But it's no good if we're too focused on finding faults but lost sight of doing good.

transmorpher said:

I think there needs to be a 3rd testament that really clears this shit up.

And if we are supposed to just use common sense, then it means we don't need the bible at all, since that would mean we have an innate ability to make good decisions ourselves.

I grew up in the Westboro Baptist Church.

bcglorf says...

Shinyblury might be better at weighing on some of this now .

I agree, the entire old testament seems at odds with Jesus's teachings....unless you interpret murder of infidels as somehow loving them to death.
With how many different christian churchs there are in every single town having a slightly different view it's hard to give a singular answer. I'd hazard the most common explanation though is that the old school laws basically demonstrated one thing to humanity, every last one of you by rights deserves death. Everybody is, by God's standards, inadequate and the penalty is death.
That's why his statements about the laws still being in full effect don't jibe with his teachings of love and acceptance, and no where does he, or God, or any prophet say his death erases God's laws that I find
Continuing what I think is the most common explanation, Jesus message was that the 'spirit' of the old school laws was to encourage humanity to love god and fellow man without exceptions. Strictly following the letter of the laws was to miss the point entire. Also, the punishment for failing to live up to the standard of universal love for God and fellow man was death, fire, brimstone and all the nasty old testament sentences.

So taking those as axioms you have God's law for humanity was and always had been love for him and each other. God's punishment for failing that measure, even in the least, was and always had been death and eternal damnation.

Again, I can't say all Christians are universally agreed on what to do from that, but I would say that the majority again follow Jesus teachings that the punishment for those that fall short was to be left to God and not to humans. As in, no more going around killing each other for breaking the law in letter or in spirit. Evangelicals are probably also universally agreed that ALL of humanity fails to meet the morality bar and thus was doomed to death until Jesus was killed. Jesus having met the bar of perfection required by the law, was thus payment through his death for the rest of humanity. So Evangelicals for the most part then take the entirety of the Bible as a message telling them they should go out and love God and everyone and in the humility that they are but for the grace of God equally deserving of damnation.

I know re-reading that it reads more like a sermon than anything, but it's also the most concisely I could manage to fit in how I understand most evangelicals to read the bible.

newtboy said:

As I've said, it's contradictory.

Jesus's death was hardly the end....there have been innumerable accomplishments since then, so in my mind it can only mean the final apocalypse.

I agree, the entire old testament seems at odds with Jesus's teachings....unless you interpret murder of infidels as somehow loving them to death. That's why his statements about the laws still being in full effect don't jibe with his teachings of love and acceptance, and no where does he, or God, or any prophet say his death erases God's laws that I find, that's pure conjecture and impious wishful thinking on the part of all those self labeled Christians, no?

If you were correct about that interpretation, ALL the old testament is moot and none of the laws/rules are still in effect, no? But no Christian worships that way that I know of....certainly not the WBC types. It's kind of all or nothing, and it's simply not practiced that way. If God hates fags, he also hates oyster eaters and poly blend wearers just the same, no?

No single terror attack in US by countries on Trump ban list

bcglorf says...

If he was on America soil, I'd agree with you. If he was living in a European apartment, I'd agree with you. Heck, if he was living in Russia I'd agree with you.

The reality is he was supporting mass killing from within a lawless part of the world were no police or courts would touch him. He was living were the only force capable of serving any manner of arrest warrant was military.

And yes, he was supporting those mass killings. We know now that he was running a charity funnelling money to terrorists even before 9/11. We know that not 1, but 3 of the 9/11 hijackers attended his sermons, even spanning two different mosques. One of those being the same mosque he met with the Fort Hood shooter. It's not exactly rocket science to put together that his 'work' with the CIA, FBI and any other organisation opposing terror wasn't honest or open from the very start. It's pretty clear his jihadists teachings came first, not after.

As you say, anywhere within the reach of the law; courts, arrest warrants and due process all protect the public well enough.

Back the original CNN clip, I dare say I must at least insist that it's not disingenuous to point to Anwar as an example of terrorism on American soil by Yemeni dual citizen.

And after all that, Trumps order is still stupid. Just because you can find such examples doesn't count as me supporting his order. I just don't see what the need is to deny facts just because Trumps order doesn't look bad enough without trying to deny reality to make it even more worthless.

enoch said:

@bcglorf
you left out that anwar had worked for the CIA and NSC as a consultant,and that in his earlier days as an imam was critical of al qeada and was very pro-american.

look,i am not arguing the fact that anwar did become radicalized,nor am i denying that his shift in attitudes (which was mainly due to americas handling of the iraqi war) had become not only critical,but had gone from condemnation to calls for violence,and praise for violence.

which brings us to the fort hood shooter nidel hasan who was an avid fan of anwar al awlaki,and DID have a correspondence with awlaki.which when examined,was pretty fucking one sided.it was apparent that hasan was attempting to get in the good graces of awlaki who,evidenced by the email correspondence,had no real relationship with hasan.though awlaki did praise hasan,and his violent actions.

so i do not get where 'the emails are closed".just google nidal hasan and anwar al awlaki emails,and you can go read for yourself.

and as for these emails as justification..i really do not see your logic in this respect.

so if someone becomes a huge fan of mine,and emails me constantly because we met ONCE and now they think we are buddies and share common interests (which,maybe we do),and that person perpetrates a violent act.

am i responsible for that act?

and here is where the crux of the discussion REALLY is:
maybe i AM responsible.
maybe i am guilty of inciting violence.
maybe i should be held accountable,because not only did i keep this mans violent intentions to myself,which resulted in death,but then praised his actions afterwards as being the will of god.

there are ALL possibilities,and they are valid questions.
they are legal questions,and maybe there should be a legal accountability.

should the proper pathway to a legal conclusion be:
a.a remotely piloted drone that targets my phone and launches a missile murdering (assasinating0 me,along with innocent by-standers?

or.

b.working with the yemeni government to bring me into a secure facility to be questioned,and possibly charged with inciting violence and prosecuted in an international court of law?

do you see what i'm saying?

the question isn't if anwar al awlaki,as a prominent imam,was vocally against american foreign policy,or that he openly supported violence in the form of terrorism.

the question is:
how do you address that situation,and prosecute the legalities?

because as scahill posited:how do you surrender to a drone?

could anwar al awlaki be guilty of EVERY charge the US accused him of?
quite possibly.
but we will never know because he was assassinated,as was his 16yr old son.

even your counter argument is speculation based on loose affiliations,and tenuous connections.

you will NEVER be able to supply a concrete,and verifiable accounting of anwar al awlaki's guilt,because you CAN'T..he was assassinated.

and THAT is the point.

now let us take this a step further.
let us examine how this can be abused,and watching trump consolidate executive power by surrounding himself with departmental loyalist,loyal only to him,we can begin to see the beginnings of trumps "soft fascism".

now lets take how you made your argument,and supplant a different scenario,but using the same parameters.

do you SEE how easily the drone program could be used to quickly,and efficiently remove opposing political players from the board? dissenting and opposing voices simply painted as violent enemies of the state that were in need of removal,because of the "possibility" that they may one day actually incite or cause violence?

the state can now murder a person for simply what they say,or write but NOT what they actually DO.

anwar al awlaki didn't actually kill anyone,didn't perpetrate any acts of violence.he simply talked about the evils of american empire,the mishandling of the iraq war (which he was originally in support of) and praised those who DID engage in violent acts of terror as doing the work of god.

should he have been held accountable in some fashion?
i think there is case to be made in that regard,but instead of going through proper channels,and adhering to the protocols of international law,he was outright assassinated.

and just how easily this can be abused is incredibly frightening.

again,i understand we approach things from different angles,but you have to see the danger in this practice,and how easily it can be misused to much darker and sinister purposes.

"well,he said nasty things about us and had a lot of friends who were on the terror watch list"

is simply NOT a valid enough excuse to simply murder someone.

there are protocols and legal procedure for a REASON,and anwar al awlaki may certainly have been in breach of international law and therefor possibly SHOULD have been prosecuted under those terms.

but we will NEVER know,because he was killed.
by an american president.
a nobel peace prize winner and constitutional law professor.

anwar al awlaki was an american citizen,his SON was an american citizen,but due to those abominations:MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012.obama had the power and authority to assassinate them both.

where was there right to face their accuser?
habeas corpus..gone...a legal right that dates back to 1205 a.d by the BRITISH..gone.
innocent until proven guilty....gone.
the right to provide evidence in your defense...gone.

all the president has to do..and DID in this case,is deem you an "enemy combatant" and BOOM..dead.

i really hope you reconsider your attitude in this case my friend,because this shit is fascism incarnate,and now trump has his chubby little fingers on the "fire" button.

god help us all......

Fox News vs Harvard On ISIS Turns Into Ignorance Fest

RFlagg says...

Got to love the country singer's straw man about Hitler and Japan and ignoring the fundamental issue of US policy in the Middle East and acting to protect oil interests over letting them self rule and work out whatever issues they have to work out. I understand the need to try and contain the fallout from the wars between the various Islamic factions (mostly Shia and Sunni) from spilling over to neighboring nations, but the US policy has been overt in serving US interests over the long term interests of the region since the 50's. The US solid backing of Israel, even in cases where it is clearly in the wrong, adds fuel to the fire.

And I know those on the right complain how Obama has backed away from Israel, though the evidence clearly differs as the US still refuses to tell Israel, to the degree we should, to treat people within its occupied zones with proper respect... and the fact so many Americans feel the need to protect Israel and favor Israel over its occupied territories no matter what, again adds fuel to the fire and shows those in Islam how under attack their faith is, which makes them stronger in their faith and more sure that they are on the right path, since the devil is working harder to put their faith down than any other faith... of course I hear this exact same argument from Christians all the time, how the devil is trying to put Christianity down proves that Christianity must be true... amazing how a little empathy would probably help world peace, but neither faith seems to have any... though I've seen enough FB memes about how Christians are so depressed because they have so much empathy and I wonder where it is, as I've yet to see any empathy from Christians as a whole. All of which digresses from the original point...

US foreign policy is directly responsible for the rise of ISIS/ISIL, whatever you want to call it... now ISIS has risen itself up to be a rather large threat via its actions, which are deliberately provoking, as it's easier to radicalize people when the world starts turning against Islam as a whole, as those on the Right are apt to do, than turn against the small segment that aren't peace loving. Of course the Right's preferred response to those provocations are to do exactly what ISIS has publicly stated they want. They want a large war against them, they'd love it if Republicans banned them from coming to the US as it would make lone wolf attacks in the US by US citizens more prevalent, which like they did with Miami (the shooter himself pledged allegiance to ISIS, but he also pledged allegiance to Hezbollah, which is fighting against ISIS)... Republican policies, especially those of Trump and Cruz are so on point with ISIS desires, one has to wonder if they themselves are tied with ISIS interests, or if they are tied to military interests that profit off continuing the war and sacrificing American lives in the name of war profiteering... but Republican Jesus said "Blessed are the warmongers and the war profiteers and cursed be the peace makers"... It was there on the Sermon on the Mount when he also said, "Blessed be the rich employer who pays his employees poorly, and cursed be those employees who are poor and needy and needing assistance. Surely I say unto you, if you give tax breaks unto the rich and cut benefits for the needy and the poor, I shall bless your Nation... oh and forget the sick and dying, they got themselves into their mess, they are responsible for getting out, only the well to do shall have healthcare." Again I digress though...



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon