search results matching tag: Kingdom
» channel: nordic
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds
Videos (396) | Sift Talk (21) | Blogs (14) | Comments (578) |
Videos (396) | Sift Talk (21) | Blogs (14) | Comments (578) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
Remembering Some Of the Most Notorious Videosift Shills (History Talk Post)
Fair enough ma'am, and as to my sincerity I consider such assertions to be somewhat subjective in light of association and nearness to your heart......and if my memory serves me incorrectly as to his mission, passion, or prominence I do with all heart and sincerity apologize once again.
Hearsay is in fact, what prompted my accusatory tone, I seem to recall someone having told me he was in fact, working for the Obama campaign in some form or another which in my personal playbook would include pejoratively your man in the ranks of similar eager apologists for the lame-duck's fan-club. I was never a fan of the damaged President, his works have proven his mettle thus far to have been a dire shame to America rather than some savior or healing saint.
You may believe me mint, that I harbor no ill-will whatsoever to your man, or to his sincerity and passion for the healing of this country. I simply consider fans of anyone whose knowledge of the facts consists of promulgated sound-bites and half-truths at face value, self-deceit of the highest order. I do respect his mind and heart, his passion and dedication to ultimate truth and peace.
As to my sanity well, what IS sanity would be my question and who if anyone is qualified to make such a bold assumption as to another person's mind? I maintain that nobody holds the keys to that mysterious kingdom and would offer, that my own dysfunction lies in my inability to use language very well, to express my emotions and angst, my joy and contentment, that all may understand and relate to. We all have our problems and mine are several and constant-Expression of heart comes at a great price for me. I am an angry person, a thoughtful person, a sincerely confused and connected person, and all humans share this with every other, with no exceptions.
If I may be called a shill as well, my fanaticism rests in the camp of understanding who and what I am relative to the rest of the human race.
We're all works-in-progress until we stop sucking air and pumping blood, my hope is to remain incarnate for another 1000 years, at which point I may become an adolescent just passing the age of reason (7 years old in human dog years)!
I hope you come back strong and NetRunner too, in 2014. I welcome what everyone has to share. Sorry I was such a dick in the past-
I won't promise that you will not see it again, keeping oneself in check is a 24/7, 365 chore.
Peace and understanding to all members of this site, and above all, love.
Cops using unexpected level of force to arrest girl
There is a flaw in your premise which suggests that somehow a capitalist system is susceptible to the "evils of man," but a "government" (no matter how limited) is not. Man is either evil or Man is not evil, regardless of the system in which Man functions. A system of government regulation can either be exploited or not, so a government imposed regulation thus becomes a mechanism for that manipulation.
Capitalism, by contrast, does not require the governmental oversight to impose the regulations that the market imposes upon itself. Such a system (despite the prevalent perception, of late) does not, in and of itself, generate the kinds of crony, kleptocratic monopolies that we have seen on the rise for the past 30+ years. That is, sadly, the effect of government -- the original monopoly -- whose regulations and hybridized (private/public) contractual agreements with the private sector create these imbalances and inequities throughout society. As far as I can tell, only the implicit competitions of the free market present the kinds of price restrictions that cannot be circumvented.
Note that capitalist competition does not mean a system of 'survival of the fittest' and it does not entail the strong surviving at the expense of the weak. In fact, the pattern seen throughout a competitive market is that of a "leader" challenged by a "second-place" (Coke then Pepsi), followed by a more distant third (other colas) and then a variety of many others (Sprite, 7-Up, A&W, etc.) Competition in capitalism differs considerably from that seen in the animal kingdom because humans, unlike animals, can increase the supply of what they need to survive, while animals cannot (with possible exceptions like bees making honey). In fact, capitalist competition does the opposite, it allows those who would otherwise not survive (because they cannot produce for themselves, or those too weak to compete) to survive by partaking in the market of increased supply. Even if those people are unable to hunt or farm for themselves, they can still feed themselves with the abundance of food produced by capitalist competition, which is a competition to produce more and better of whatever the market needs (with an accurate reflection of supply and demand in the price, which is very different from the kinds of "blind" economic calculations necessary in a centralized system of government). And to have such an abundance of production/supply, you need capital investment. There's no other alternative.
In any case, read the article I posted. Let me know what you think.
I believe in Stateless society, but I don't believe in privatization under a capitalist system. We need to find a balance between profitability and equal compensation for provider and receiver.
There is a role for limited government, but I think it's limited to a nexus for regulation, and nothing more. Let everything else be privatized, but to a very limited extent. Honestly I really think that everything should be non-profit, but I don't actually know how to propose something that isn't leaning towards communism.
I will gladly read the essay you linked to tomorrow, but from my understanding of human nature and history, I don't think there is any way to balance a for-profit enterprise without succumbing to the evils of man.
We are the Transparent Machines
precisely the point I've been arguing for a while now: the hypocrisy of being giving up our personal and private data at the drop of a hat, yet being outraged when government uses it.
privacy as most people think of it is an outdated concept.
we give out that data freely all the time. we share what we're thinking and doing with Facebook and Twitter all the time.
Even when we're at home and not online, we still share private information freely with our friends and loved ones and that info gets shared with other friends and loved ones.
face it, the human being is not a private creature.
There is always going to be a risk of someone mis-using that collected information, but that doesn't mean the genie is put back in the bottle. All you can do is put safeguards in place and quite frankly, the human race needs to grow up a little so that the temptation to use it maliciously is easier to ignore.
they said the same shit about the nuclear bomb and we're still have yet to blow ourselves to kingdom come. In addition, when we master nuclear fusion it's going to leap us forward tremendously.
someone's eventually going to figure out a tremendously positive use for all of that sociological data that will benefit us greatly. That's typically the nature of all these military and space projects. The tech gets spun off into medical and other positive ventures.
Wes Anderson - The Grand Budapest Hotel (Trailer)
Wait, is this new? I loved Moonrise Kingdom, seems like this is happening so fast, I'm not ready!
Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Republican Shutdown Threats
But America is a Christian nation, unlike the rest of the heathen world, we were chosen by God to be an example to the world.
Don't you recall when the ill, lame and infirm came to Jesus and asked for healing and Jesus said, "Get up you lazy Socialist, I take care of my own health, why should I take care of yours?" It was around the same spot that Jesus said, "Blessed are the warmongers and war profiteers".
And just a chapter or two later Jesus told the poor and needy "to get off your lazy bum and become rich so that you may enter the kingdom of God" and told the rich man "acquire more wealth, then follow me to get into the kingdom of God" as he wasn't rich enough to enter Heaven yet.
Helping the needy and poor is what destroyed Sodom according to Ezekiel 16:49. [I can't even figure out how to make that read that it wasn't the fault of that era's Republican mentality in sarcasm mode here... of course most modern Republican Christians blame the destruction of Sodom on the gays based on what happened to the angels, that the all knowing God, who knows the heart of all men, sent there to see if there were any good people in Sodom. Not finding any people willing to help the needy and the poor, the cities sealed their fate, and the angels went to escort Lots family to safety. Which is when the whole thing with the angels and the crowd takes place; where Lot pulled the father of the year award by offering his daughters (think Olson twins) over the big angelic warriors with magical powers (think Rambo and Conan the Barbarian with magical powers) ...or just saying no when the crowds wanted them which one would think would be the logical way rather than offering one's innocent daughters, but hey... anyhow the angels escort the family to safety rather than God just teleporting them to safety for some odd reason...]
Jesus said that if somebody hurts you to destroy them and protect your stuff with force, because stuff matters more than their puny lives. That's why all good Christians fight to let everyone have guns, to protect their stuff the way Jesus said to.
Or you could, I dunno, just remove the profit motive from health care and treat people like humans if they get sick?
I don't think people in the US actually realise just how disturbed and fucked up their whole system seems to the rest of us.
Stephen Colbert: Super Reagan
Regimes supported
Juan Vicente Gomez, Venezuela, 1908-1935.
Jorge Ubico, Guatemala, 1931-1944.
Fulgencio Batista, Republic of Cuba 1952-1959.
Syngman Rhee, Republic of Korea (South Korea), 1948-1960.
Rafael Trujillo, Dominican Republic, 1930-1961.[citation needed]
Ngo Dinh Diem, Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam), 1955-1963.
Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran, 1953-1979.
Anastasio Somoza Garcia, Nicaragua, 1967-1979.
Military Junta in Guatemala, 1954-1982.
Military Junta in Bolivia, 1964-1982.[citation needed]
Military Junta in Argentina, 1976-1983.
Brazilian military government, 1964-1985.
François Duvalier and Jean-Claude Duvalier, Republic of Haiti, 1957-1971; 1971-1986.[citation needed]
Alfredo Stroessner, Paraguay, 1954-1989.[citation needed]
Ferdinand Marcos, Philippines, 1965-1986.[8][9]
General Manuel Noriega, Republic of Panama, 1983-1989.
General Augusto Pinochet, Chile, 1973-1990.
Saddam Hussein, Republic of Iraq, 1982-1990.
General (military), Suharto Republic of Indonesia, 1975-1995.
Mobutu Sese Seko, Zaire/Congo, 1965-1997.
Hosni Mubarak, Egypt, 1981-2011.
Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, Kingdom of Bahrain, 2012.
Saudi royal family, 2012.
Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan, 1991-2012.[10]
Meles Zenawi, Ethiopia, 1995-2012.[11]
Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, Equatorial Guinea, 2006-2012.[12]
Why Are American Health Care Costs So High?
No, the US spends MORE TAX MONEY per capita than, say, Sweden and all those other countries with "free" healthcare.(except for 3 of them) Swedes do pay more taxes, yes, but its not because of healthcare.
ON TOP of all those taxes, Americans pay private insurance or bankrupt themselves in order to actually get healthcare when they need it.
http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2013/02/23/which-nation-has-the-most-per-capita-government-spending-on-healthcare-france-italy-the-united-states-
sweden-canada-greece-or-the-united-kingdom/
Also, to say Americans pay more for healthcare does not take into account how much Europeans pay in taxes in order to get whatever healthcare they get. So it's not clear where he gets that Americans pay more for healthcare or how he measures that.
The True Cost of the Royal Family
Tags for this video have been changed from 'royal family, queen elizabeth, UK, united kingdom, monarchy, tourism' to 'royal family, queen elizabeth, UK, united kingdom, monarchy, tourism, CGPGrey' - edited by RFlagg
How Steve Irwin Reacts to the Deadliest Snake in America
For some maybe. For others he was a genuinely nice guy with a passion for showing people the animal kingdom with a pure Australian character.
Please understand that this guy was our Honey Boo-Boo.
Bradley Manning goes to trial
I'll try a point by point and then I'll probably lose track.
-I wouldn't say courage. I would say naivety (the two are confused alot....maybe you need one for the other...idk). He was used by wiki-leaks and the gang as a suicide bomber and now he will be raped in jail for the rest of his life...and nothing will change except that wiki-leaks gained notoriety. I bet he would take it back if he could.
-He was and is a traitor to his country (it's sad because I get the feeling he didn't fully understand what he was doing...prob. blinded by wiki leaks and gang). You don't release gobs of state secrets like that. Why couldn't he just release the helicopter video or other choice things? (still bad even then).
-He was a soldier. He swore an oath. Anyone even remotely connected to the military understands what I'm getting at. If he wanted to be a champion of truth he shouldn't have gone into the military. Become a reporter, a politician. There are plenty of more legitimate (effectiveness aside) ways to do what he did.
-The concept of total transparency as applied to states is stupid. Every state since the beginning of time has functioned because of its ability to have secrets. Try it on an individual level....go around 1 day and tell everyone everything.
-You talk about the absolute hypocrisy of this administration? Every administration in the history of mankind (excluding Camelot, the Magic Kingdom, and/or Castle Greyskull) to a greater or lesser has done the same thing. To think otherwise is naive. Thats how States function....by not telling, lets say, North Korea that we dropped off patriot missiles in Japan or that we have a secret agreement to to attack them with China should anything happen.
-Am I saying that we should be able to hush up the deaths of innocent civilians and etc......no. I'm just saying that there are more responsible ways to ensure that stuff like that doesn't happen.
@Confucius
maybe i am reading your comment wrong.
i feel this is important because manning had the courage to expose the hypocrisy and malfeasance of the state department.
Arya Stark recaps last episode(spoilers)
But they're a match made in heaven! I'm hoping that their child will end up as the ruler of the seven kingdoms. We'll have to wait until Martin finishes the series I guess
I'm can't tell if you are serious or not, but I assure you that most people would rather have Rob, Catelyn and Talisa back. Seeing Arya and Clegane "The Hound" Sandor getting married is not going to cheer them up, bedding ceremony or not.
Atheist in the Bible Belt outs herself because she is MORAL
I understand now why you garner such hostility from other Sifters . Still at least your trying to engage me intellectually, in that respect at least you may consider yourself light years ahead of most of your brethren.
I garner hostility here because most of the sifters here grew up in Christian households and they've rebelled against their parents and God and they don't want to hear anything about Him. This is their sanctuary where they enjoy mocking God and Christians without any dissenting voices. I'm here because I care but I wouldn't be here unless God told me to be here. I've tried to leave a few times and He keeps sending me back. Although not so much lately.
There appear to be two fundamental points of disagreement/misunderstanding here.
...Instead we apply Hegel's Dialectic:
Thesis- all statements are false
Antithesis- therefore the above statement must be false and some statements must be true
Synthesis- statements can be both true and false simultaneously!!!!!!!!!!!!
There are two ways, and only two ways, to know truth. Either you are omnipotent, or an omnipotent being reveals it to you. Since humans are not omnipotent it is impossible to know truth unless it is revealed to us by an omnipotent being, ie God. If you think there is another way to know truth, name it. Otherwise what is there to debate? If you don't think it's possible to know truth then you don't know anything. If you don't know anything then you have nothing to talk about.
"Nothing is true" is mere expression. It is a poetic sounding mantra which contains therein a deeper wisdom about the foundations of all human knowledge. You are not specially equipped to break the problem of "under-determination" as outlined by Philosophers like David Hume. God himself could appear to you and say/do anything he liked, it would not change the fundamental limits of the human condition.
Could God reveal Himself to you in a way that you could be absolutely certain of it? It doesn't matter what we can prove to one another; God could sufficiently prove Himself to me (He has) or to you and it would transcend every piece of rationale you've offered.
How could you possibly know for certain that it was not Satan out to trick you? Satan is a deeply powerful being after all, powerful enough to fabricate a profound spiritual experience don't you think? How could you ever prove that the God you worship is not the greatest impostor in the cosmos beyond all doubt?
I know it for certain because God has made me certain. I've seen things only an omnipotent God could do, such as arranging and timing circumstances which would require Him to be in complete and precise control of everything and everyone. Satan certainly can generate profound spiritual experiences (and blindness), which is why he is able to deceive the whole world.
I ask this because the God you worship DEMANDS that you do in fact worship him (and only him) on threat of divine punishment. No true God would ever require worship, let alone demand it! What kind of sick egotist are we dealing with? (the changes in the system related to that whole Jesus thing don;t make a difference here. Either This "God" started perfect or it is not what it claims to be! Past crimes count no matter what token amends were made later on)
God doesn't need us, woo. He had perfect love within His Trinity relationships before He created anything. He doesn't demand that we worship Him because He is egotistical, He commands us to worship Him to put us in right relationship with Him as the supreme good and sustainer of all things. He is the only appropiate object for our adoration, which also puts us in right relationship with other people. Human beings are built to worship; that is why the world is littered with the carcasses of false idols. I don't just mean pagan deities, I mean power, money, fame and all of the other things human beings lust and pine away for. The thing man most likes to worship is himself. Humanists worship the intellect, and the accomplishments of human civilization. These too are idols. Everyone has something they worship, when God is the only appropiate object of our worship. The love that we have to give to all of those things comes from Him, and that is why we return it to Him, which in turn leads to greater love for all people and things. Every other kind of worship is selfish and ultimately spiritual dead(and destructive). Thus this command to worship Him alone (we were created to be in relationship with Him) is for our growth, our protection, and so that we can be who He created us to be.
Your not the only one to have experienced encounters with things you might call "Gods" or "Angels/Daemons". But the God I found lies entirely within and demands/threatens ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and sets ABSOLUTELY NO CONDITIONS. It knows that all Monads (souls) will inevitably make their way back to it, and that it has the patience of eternity with which to wait.
How do you know that?
The fundamental difference is that this God did not create the universe (an absurd answer which demands infinitely more explanation than it provides), this God is created BY THE UNIVERSE!
The explanation you provide only pushes the "absurdity" back one step; you're still left with the same problem as you say I have. Yet, it is not a problem to believe in something eternal. To believe something came from nothing wouldbe the absurdity. Do you believe the Universe is eternal?
We are all "God" experiencing itself subjectively as it evolves teleologically towards perfection. If Consciousness is eternal then this is the only outcome that makes any sense. God being perfect and beyond all time experiences everything it is conceivably possible for a perfect being to experience within an instant of non-time. With all of eternity stretched it before it does the only sensible thing it could do, it commits suicide and returns the universe to a state of pure potential, ready to undergo the experience of evolving from the most basic "mathematical" principles to fully actualised and all powerful consciousness (i.e. back at God again). A fundamental part of this entire process is the journey from elemental and animalistic unconsciousness to fully self aware enlightened consciousness, the highest truth then is to discover that you yourself are God (at least in-potentia), not some mysterious external power.
If God is perfect, which He is, then He isn't limited. His joy never ends; it is the limitation of the human intellect that prevents you from understanding an infinite being, so you have devised a scenario based on those limitations where you impose a limitation on Gods experience so that He is forced to "commit suicide" in order to have new and enjoyable experiences. An infinite being experiences infinite joy. A perfect being will always be perfect. God doesn't evolve; a perfect being has no need to evolve or ever become "basic". He is eternally perfect, and we are not.
1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
The other is your conviction that the Gospel is absolutely true and that you appear to see everything related to it and the greater human spiritual quest via this filter. I'm not going to trade scripture with you on matters of pedantry it'll take all day and get neither of us anywhere. Instead I shall focus on one key argument that undermines the entire house of cards. If the God of Abraham and the old testament is one in the same as the God of which Jesus preaches (/is in corporeal form) and further more that the Old testament is in some way a true account of his/its actions......Then the God of Abraham and Jesus is demonstrably A. not perfect and B. malevolent/incompetent.
Yes, the God Abraham is the God Jesus is referring to. The error is that you think you understand God better than Jesus did. Jesus is the perfect representation of God; His exact image. If you've seen Jesus you have seen the Father. They are one and the same in terms of their character and every other attribute. You don't see that because you don't understand the scriptures. Jesus did, which is why He said things like this:
John 17:23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.
The atheist version of studying the bible is to look for something that seems to contradict the claims of Christians so that they can throw it in the garbage and be done with it. You would see the same God that Jesus represents in the Old Testament if you understood the history that it presents.
Go ask the Benjamites or the Canaanites how they feel about this "God". Or how about the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah? The firstborn of Egypt? etc. etc.
Go ask the criminals on death row how they feel about the judge and prosecutor who sent them there. Does that mean they don't deserve to be there?
Yaweh demands Abraham sacrifice his own son, truly the act of a benevolent creature no? And while were on the subject what kind of "God" demands a blood sacrifice for anything? Even if it was a legitimate test of Abrahams faith (a highly dubious notion unto itself) what about the poor goat sacrificed in his sons stead?
This leads into the key difference between the Gnostic God/The Buddha/Dau/Chi etc. (Esoteric) and the Abrahamic God (Exoteric).....
God didn't ask Abraham to do anything that He wasn't willing to do Himself, but unlike Abraham God did sacrifice His son. This is what I mean when I say that you you're not understanding what you're reading. The sacrifice of Issac is a picture of Jesus Christ. You don't see these things because you don't know what to look for.
One merely offers the wisdom to transcend the suffering inherent in mortal life and make ones way back to union with that which we were all along. It is not invested in the material world, it is merely a higher expression of consciousness no longer bound by emergent natural laws. It never judges, it never condemns or punishes and it helps only those who are ready to help themselves.
The other demands blood sacrifices, incites genocides, sets strict rules and threatens you with damnation if you don't obey, demands worship (WORSHIP! WTF!!!!), inspires/authors deeply contradictory and difficult to understand written works (it expects you to accept on faith alone), claims to be a perfect creator of a universe into which suffering and imperfection are inherent (perfect beings do not create imperfect things) etc. etc.
Here is the difference..the God you describe wants to "help" you out of a situation that it created because of its own limitations and need for self-gratification. It is not only responsible for evil, but it does nothing about it. The God you describe is limited, selfish and immoral.
The way you describe my God is a strawman argument in itself. It is not an accurate representation of the biblical account. The God of the Universe created a perfect Universe and endowed His creatures with free will. The creatures He created freely chose to do evil and this is what brought sin and death into the world. This is the reason for the imperfection, and God, at great personal cost to Himself, restored and reconciled His creation through Jesus Christ.
You won't be able to understand the bible without Gods help:
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
That's why I suggested you read the gospel of John, if you really do want to understand God accurately, and pray for assistance.
I don't side with Lucifer (I think she has the opposite problem to Jehova i.e. enlightenment at all costs as quickly as possible and damm the journey to get there), but I do recognise her as the fundamentally opposing force to Jehovah/Allah out of which a higher synthesis emerges (Abraxas the Gnostic God of light, or whatever you want to call it). Jehovah represents supreme attachment to the material world (R>0),
It's a false dichotomy. What you're describing when you refer to God is the gnostic demiurge, which bears no resemblence to the God of the bible. There are no opposing forces to be spoken of because there is no actual duality. God is only light and the only thing He is attached to is His children, because He freely loves them. He is the only power in the Universe. Satan has a paper kingdom; it is just shadows on the wall. In any case, you can't escape the corruption caused by your sin nature. If you shatter a mirror, no matter how well you glue it back together it will never reflect purely again. It doesn't need to be repaired, it needs to be replaced. This is why Jesus said you need to be born again:
John 3:3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
When you receive Jesus as Lord and Savior, He will send the Holy Spirit to live inside of you and make you a new person. You are spiritually dead in sins and transgressions, but the Holy Spirit will regenerate your spirit and cleanse you from all of your sin.
while Lucifer supreme attachment to the spiritual/mental (R=0). A wise man see's the two as a personification of the two highest drives in the human psyche and thus concepts to be transcended/mastered.
Satan desired one thing, which was to be God. He became prideful because of his great beauty and intellect and based on his ignorance of Gods true nature, he tried to form a rebellion against God to replace Him and was kicked out of Heaven. This is essentially the process you are describing for those who believe they are God. All Satan is trying to do is duplicate his errors in you and as many other people as he can so that he can destroy them before his time comes. He can't strike back at God directly so he goes after his creatures. Satan is an imitator; he is a potter just as God is a potter. He is doing everything possible to shape and mold you into his image and character, and he has entire universes of deception waiting for you, filled with as much "secret knowledge and wisdom" as you desire. He has a door for every kind of person, every kind of philosophy; his is the broad road that leads to destruction. Jesus said enter through the narrow gate:
Mat 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.
Mat 7:14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
Either way I regard worshipping the God of Abraham as the "one true God" to be a supreme mistake, if Jesus professes to preach that same God's gospel then following him would be a supreme mistake also. I show no fealty to torture Gods, I have more self respect than that.
You surely prefer the idol you have created in your own mind, because that is the god who allows you to do whatever you want. That's all this is really about. Do you know what Jesus said the reason is that men won't come to God?:
John 3:19-21
19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”
You don't get to decide who God is, and just because you don't think you should be accountable for what you've done in this life doesn't mean you won't be.
For the record. I love you as much as any other creature in this cosmos but I don't pray to anything for your soul to be saved. Truly it was never in jeopardy in the first place! That part of you which lies beyond the limits of mortality will find its way back to the highest state eventually no matter what, even if it takes eons. In the mean time however I'm happy to waste a small portion of said eons arguing (I suspect futilely) with you on the internet.
God loves you and I love you, and that's why I am telling you all of this. The highest state is the lowest state:
Mat 23:11 The greatest among you shall be your servant.
Mat 23:12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
(I'll get back to you on some of your other more specific points at a later point, I don't have the time or inclination to dig out the texts to make those counter arguments right now.)
Take your time. God bless.
...
Bill Maher Discusses Boston Bombing and Islam
Debate, yay! Let's take this in order:
@00Scud00 You don't actually disagree with me it seems. Christian fundamentalism is (almost) as dangerous as Islam fundamentalism imo, with the tiny caveat that Jesus' message was mostly
pacificpassive-aggressive, à la "be nice to everyone here, me and Dad will torture our enemies in the afterlife", whereas Muhammed's was very much "death to the infidel, by our hand and/or God's" (e.g. s2:191-3; s4:89; 5:33; 9:52, etc). As for nation-building, it is more rooted in Islam - if only by virtue of being what their holiest figure did, contrary to the "kingdom-of-heaven-is-not-on-earth" Jesus (of course, Christianity's inherent One Truth totalitarianism is, as history shows, a perfect backup ideology for colonizing and war-weilding as well.Of course people growing up with Islam will, for the most part, adhere to the good and ignore (sadly, instead of revolting against) the evil, just like with any other religion. That does not change the inherent wrongness and dangerousness of the ideology itself.
"You're condemning an entire belief system
and billions of Muslimsbased ona statistically small group of whackjobs, doesn't sound very scientific to me.the comparatively greater (observable and quantifiable) numbers of threats/acts of violence done in the name of Islam than those in the name of other religious ideologies in this point in history " FTFClarity. If I mention >100'000person-riots demanding the deaths of atheist bloggers, which religious beliefs are most likely to be at the source there? Proportionally, which religious beliefs have, today, the most negative effects on women? Which population of ex-"religion" is most likely to receive death threats and/or be killed for religious reasons? I could go on, but I think the point is made that, proportionally, Islam is the greatest cause of religious-fueled harm today.@Yogi, apples and oranges dear, not to mention your very narrow definition of Islam's toll (the sunnis bombed by chiites and vice-versa, and all the honour-killing victims, to name only a couple, would not agree with you). The US-wrought massacres in the ME are unforgiveable, no doubt about it, but most of the excuses made to justify it were secular, not religious. Fundamentalist Islam is above all a threat to its immediate neighbours (usually other muslims). Islamist terrorism is only one aspect of the ideology's dangers, and takes its greatest toll in Africa and the ME. Counting only US victims is terribly self-centered.
@SDGundamX Hello old debate-buddy; I will freely admit that I do not want to spend days and days compiling exact numbers of "victims of Islam" vs "victims of other religions", and I think it is rather a dismissive tactic to demand such data. That is why I formulated the question differently in the response above to 00Scud00: take a look at the state of the world, and simply compare. Does this paint all of Islam in a broad brush? You think it does, I do not. I do not find it contradictory to accept the wide variety of "Islams" and Islamic practices/interpretations while arguing that the core fundamentals of Islam, i.e. the founding texts and exemplary figures, can and sadly often do lead to or are invoked to motivate violence and unethical behaviour, and that at this point in history it is the one that does so the most. I do not imply that there is "one" practice of Islam, that is you projecting. There are, however, a set of texts at the core of Islam, and with it a set of beliefs (as you yourself point out).
There is a reason why "moderate" Christians, Muslims, etc. are called "moderate": they only "moderately" adhere to that core. And yes, Muslims disagree with eachother about how to live/interpret that core, and sometimes (like the Christians and Jews etc. before them) kill eachother over their disagreements.
Is there good stuff to be found in those fundamentals? Yes, of course, but they are basics of human empathy and animal morality, and do not require holy validation (this applies for all religious fundamentals of course).
You and many others seem to be unable to dissociate "hating an ideology" from "hating every individual who adheres to it, no matter to what degree". It is noteworthy that the people who accuse others of painting Islam/Muslims "with one broad stroke" are often guilty of implying exactly that when they make that accusation: "you express dislike of Islam and/or the acts of certain Muslims, ergo you can only be expressing dislike for all of them, because one=all!"
As for equating Islam with danger, there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is to equate Muslim people with danger, and yes, there is a huge difference, one that people like myself think so obvious as to not have to spell it out until opposing voices accuse us of not making that difference, often because they themselves cannot. When the fundamentals say "believing something other than Islam is worse than murder" and "kill the non-believer", it is a dangerous ideology. Thankfully we know that the majority of individuals will eschew that part of the fundamentals, gaining the "moderate" achievement. This does not diminish the danger inherent in the fundamentals.
@Babymech It is not ignorant to say that Chechens have been bombed, massacred, and isolated, and are poor as all get-out. It is ignorant to suggest that these are the only possible reasons a culture might have violent strains running through it, and that one should by all means not look towards the beliefs that explicitly command killing people who don't believe what you do. Moreover, my history is pretty rusty, but of all the many places and peoples the US has bombed and massacred, I don't remember Chechnya being among them. The Boston bombing may have been political in nature, but suggesting that it can only be so and cannot have religious motivations is simplistic and counter to, well, reality.
Tiny Baby Otter Learns To Swim
Stop saying this looks brutal. It doesn't. Stop making us feel like we're THAT overly sensitive to everything. Are we? Oh you are? Oh I am. That's right. Well, stop making this woman apologize for your stupid liberal agenda. DA LIBERAL AGENDA. Is it worse than the CONSERVATIVE AGENDA. Not sure.
Words come out of my mouth; thought flows into my fingers onto a keyboard. What are they these thoughts and words? Cute animals all day, cute child abusing animals. On the youtube embeds. Cute BUT UNFORTUNATELY CHILD ABUSING. Save us from our kingdom the animal kingdom. Tear the flesh from our bones and make us spiritual beings of everlasting moral behavior. I can't bear witnessing the utter brutality! Ahhhhh!
Tim's Place: The World's Happiest Restaurant
OK Ok. i have to be the guy who turns this in a wrong direction. Sorry.
I have worked with these wonderful individuals who have Down Syndrome and have cherished my time with them. Yet I have to throw out these stats and wonder how people today feel about it:
"A 2002 literature review of elective abortion rates found that 91–93% of pregnancies in the United Kingdom and Europe with a diagnosis of Down syndrome were terminated. Data from the National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register in the United Kingdom indicates that from 1989 to 2006 the proportion of women choosing to terminate a pregnancy following prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome has remained constant at around 92%.
In the United States a number of studies have examined the abortion rate of fetuses with Down syndrome. Three studies estimated the termination rates at 95%, 98%, and 87% respectively." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#Abortion_rates)
My question to you is: Should we terminate any child that has a pre-birth diagnosis of Down Syndrome? And if so, will you miss seeing stories like the above? Since we cannot cure Down Syndrome, is the answer to just terminate it before it happens...or should we encourage parents to try and bring these beautiful children into the world? Videos like these sort of hinge on that choice.