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

Well put - you should be a writer or something.>> ^KotDBook:

Quantummushroom's response is why I said publishers feel it's "edgy".
You're right. Hitler and pedophiles are too easy. There are plenty of contemporary examples of why attacking Christianity is easy. The book won't deal with that (only with what's in the Bible...and zombies). The video was about why people should learn what's in the Bible.
I'm not claiming to offer up a brand-new theological paradigm. There are a ton of arguments and counter-arguments, and I'm presenting them in a narrative. The reader will decide which argument makes more sense. Is there a hell? What happens to dead babies who haven't accepted Jesus? How do you reconcile "free will" with a deity that offers immortal rewards? What does the Bible say about eating feces and drinking urine?
Since the Bible's perfect, it should stand up to questions. It has all the answers, right? So isn't exposing people to those questions a good thing? Why is exposing people to the concepts of the Bible "bashing"? Are you only allowed to pick it up if you agree beforehand to accept everything within it without question?
How do Christians expect to convert atheists and other religions to their faith if they can't learn about it? Can you only biology if you agree not to ask any questions? Okay, bad example.
And yes, there are good and bad people, regardless of religion (or lack thereof). And a few bad Popes or Holy Crusades or Inquisitions doesn't mean that every Christian is evil, necessarily.
Good luck with your Mohammed book. I'd skip the slideshow.

Quantummushroom's response is why I said publishers feel it's "edgy".

You're right. Hitler and pedophiles are too easy. There are plenty of contemporary examples of why attacking Christianity is easy. The book won't deal with that (only with what's in the Bible...and zombies). The video was about why people should learn what's in the Bible.

I'm not claiming to offer up a brand-new theological paradigm. There are a ton of arguments and counter-arguments, and I'm presenting them in a narrative. The reader will decide which argument makes more sense. Is there a hell? What happens to dead babies who haven't accepted Jesus? How do you reconcile "free will" with a deity that offers immortal rewards? What does the Bible say about eating feces and drinking urine?

Since the Bible's perfect, it should stand up to questions. It has all the answers, right? So isn't exposing people to those questions a good thing? Why is exposing people to the concepts of the Bible "bashing"? Are you only allowed to pick it up if you agree beforehand to accept everything within it without question?

How do Christians expect to convert atheists and other religions to their faith if they can't learn about it? Can you only biology if you agree not to ask any questions? Okay, bad example.

And yes, there are good and bad people, regardless of religion (or lack thereof). And a few bad Popes or Holy Crusades or Inquisitions doesn't mean that every Christian is evil, necessarily.

Good luck with your Mohammed book. I'd skip the slideshow.

I didn't say what she was saving it for....


>> ^EmptyFriend:

i was expecting either the rat to come back to life, or to accept jesus into his (or her) heart.
not the lady to just take the rat.
"Old Lady Takes a Dead Rat"

i was expecting either the rat to come back to life, or to accept jesus into his (or her) heart.

not the lady to just take the rat.

"Old Lady Takes a Dead Rat"

>> ^TheGenk:

We all know that that didn't cure him. What cured him was accepting jesus christ as his savior.
</sarcasm>
But what this shows is that one day we will be able to take the genes for HIV-resistance and insert them into your stemcells or stemcells being transplanted to you(or any resistances we find or would be nice to have).


You also wiped out the existing white blood cells with chemo, which makes this a special case of was it the stem cells alone, or was the chemo needed as well. Chemo therapy has high risks as well, you can die from a simple infection in this depressed imuno-state. Like the lady said, it was more a proof of concept than a solution in itself.

We all know that that didn't cure him. What cured him was accepting jesus christ as his savior.
</sarcasm>

But what this shows is that one day we will be able to take the genes for HIV-resistance and insert them into your stemcells or stemcells being transplanted to you(or any resistances we find or would be nice to have).

>> ^Hybrid:

The power of Christ compels you!


dammit! ya beat me to it!
thats exactly what i was thinking.
that and a huge WTF to her prayer for people to stop "idolizing intelligence"..
yeah..dont be using them things they call brains.
brains are for pussies.
just accept jesus.
he will think for you!
fucking retard.

He's wrong about Christians giving things away for free, though.

You have to either love Jesus or listen to them try to make you "accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior" or you can just keep shuffling on down the road.

If religion wants to claim the moral high ground, it has to take the moral high ground. It doesn't. People are good and bad, whether atheist, christian, muslim, buddhist etc etc.

I think it's weird when people look at convicts and go "he's found Jesus, so he's good now".. why is that any indication? Fred Phelps?

I see Christianity (or any other religion) as a package deal, you can't just accept the good parts and leave the bad parts out - then it's not really christianity anymore, but your own new religion. You can choose to do the good actions, the actions you perceive to be good, while not accepting jesus, jehova or any other deity. And if having blind, unwavering faith is a good deed to you, then you might want to re-evaluate that before you get ripped off by a cult leader.

Some people may need a religious or religious-like structure to be good, but most don't. Why should it be imposed on those?

Anyway, this was an inspiring video, giving the convicts some dignity and something to take their minds off things.

>> ^gwiz665:
There is not one good argument for Christianity or any other religion, which non-religion cannot do. In that sense, it's useless.


Can it provide you a life after death?

I honestly believe the biggest issue for most believers is that they have been raised with this idea that the current existence is imperfect and that afterlife will provide -- Gettin' high on 24/7 Holy Spirit and full knowledge of life, universe and everything. At least, that's what my parents sold me at the age of 4. I sometimes don't understand how I escaped the talons of fantasy Christian afterlife. Indoctrination from a young age is a brick house that rarely fails. It really is a comforting notion that may be too much for some believers who are on the fence. Why do I think this? Because I, like most believers (this is a guess) was on the fence before I got the balls to start having honest, systematic dialogues with my pastor. But after a lot of discussion, argument, and a near middle finger from my youth pastor, I realized what bullshit it all was. It's the ultimate peer pressure scheme with a back up afterlife threat, just in case you're a black sheep in your congregation. Accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior comes with the high cost of a twisted conscience.

Fuck you and your controversy category... I'll rape your Cherokee grandfather in front of your wife with my daughter's baby rattle while I force you to listen to Ludwig Von, then combine your tears with my girlfriend's tears, who I just punched in the cunt (because she didn't wear her Islam face thingy); then, I'll mix it with poo and agent orange, and sell it as anti-AIDS medicine in Africa. All proceeds, that aren't converted to carbon credits and WoW gold, will go to the Catholic church and Fred Phelps' God Hates Fags site. I'll write about it prison and dedicate it to the memory of Hitler, weapons of mass destruction, and all the fans of the Twilight series. P.S. Before I have sex with your grandfather, I will tear out the foetus of a pregnant Hindu priestess, fuck that foetus, then use its stim cells to increase the length of my cock -- which will be ramming into a cow after this all happens. Then I'll eat the cow. Then I'll accept JESUS CHRIST as my personal savious, kill myself and have my remains fed to Pepperridge Farm chickens.

See ya in Heaven, bitch nigga.

>> ^blankfist:
Yeah, agnosticism is a given, because no one can know the existence of god. You're either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
By the way, I just realized that poll is on the international cnn page. I was really hoping the atheist movement in the US was taking off. Guess I was wishing.


I beg to differ... there is a very vocal community in the US which actually believes they "know" God. They talk to him, and he talks to them. The whole "have to accepted jesus" thing is alive and kicking in this country and those people would never in a million years describe themselves as agnostics of any kind...

Harry has finally accepted Jesus into his heart.

See you in hell, Pepper.

Yes, trancecoach. *IF* it is mere myth. That's the whole damn question. Hitchens, of course, has his mind made up that it is nothing but myth and therefore ludicrous. Lewis, of course, had his mind made up that it was not mere myth, but rather the true story of which all myths are weakened echoes. I agree with Lewis and share his conviction that any sane person must either reject Jesus or embrace him fully. All in between is illogical.

Anyway, Hitchens does well here except that he slips in confusion talking about the immorality of "pushing" one's responsibility onto someone else. Neither Lewis nor Jesus speak of that. They speak of Jesus taking it onto himself, making it clear that this is Jesus' wish and initiative. The difference is rather crucial, unless of course you want to confuse people to bias them in favor of your rejection of Jesus.

And let's not pretend that everyone is eager to have someone stand in their place. No, pride keeps many from really accepting Jesus' offer, just look at all the legalistic Christians out there who still seem to think they are earning salvation by their works. Sure, they claim to believe Jesus, but they sure as hell don't live or love like him. No, instead they run around trying to be perfect on their own merits and end up screwing it all up with disasters like crusades, inquisitions and Fox News.

Still, it is nice to see that Jesus' self-sacrifice on our behalf remains just as he said it would: "a stumbling block to the Jews and a foolishness to the gentiles".

Dear god... why are they trying to cover this up? Rhetorical question? Followed by firing?

you know what? the fact that 50% of this country supports her, I say let her be president. Just that simple. If the kid doesn't learn that the stove is hot after touching it, he didn't leave his hand on the stove long enough.

Edit: Knivesout hit this issue on the HEAD: I can just see Palin asking (rhetorically mind you) of Islam nations why they haven't accepted Jesus, the clear master of the universe, as their lord and savior....