The dude is right.
All sin is equal in GODS eye.
Gay marrage or adultery or a drunkard or a thief are all the same.
The courts have only legalize one of these. Still does not make it right.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'BriTANick, victims, adultery, secrets, reveal, scapegoat' to 'rose mciver, BriTANick, victims, adultery, secrets, reveal, scapegoat' - edited by lucky760

But what if the 'holy spirit' tells me clearly that I don't need to believe in any supernatural insanity to be a good person (which is the most important, and often missed lesson of religion)? Or that my 'heavenly reward' is in life, in knowing I'm a decent person to others, no afterlife required?
It seems that should be just fine, according to some scripture (not that I care about or believe in scripture) and should be enough to get proselytizers to let me be, but it's not.

It depends on what you mean when you use the word good. I'll venture that you are using a relative standard of good, but that isn't the standard that God uses. Usually, when we call ourselves good it is in comparison to other people. You might think, I've never raped or murdered, and I am certainly no Adolf Hitler or Ted Bundy, so I am good by basis of comparison. Yet, what God calls good is moral perfection, and everything that falls short of that He calls evil. His standard is an absolute standard, not a relative one, and so our relative standard of good is not good enough.

When people call themselves good, generally, what they really mean is that they have good intentions. In our hearts we want to do right and think good things about people, yet the reality is usually starkly different. If you examine yourself in the light of the 10 commandments, even just four of them such as do not lie, do not steal, do not covet, do not take the Lords name is vain, you probably find them that you've broken them hundreds if not thousands of times in your life. Jesus took the standard even higher and said that if we hate anyone, we've murdered them in our hearts, and if we look at a woman with lust we have committed adultery with them in our hearts. If our lives were an open book and people could see not only what we've done but also what was going on in our hearts, would anyone call us good? I can say for myself it would be an open and shut case.

This is why we need a Savior; we will be judged for what we do in this life and our goodness isn't good enough. That is why Jesus came; to pay the price that we cannot pay so that we can be forgiven for our sins and have eternal life. Whether you care about the scripture, think about whether you would ever jump out of a plane without a parachute. That's exactly what you are prepared to do by entering into eternity without Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

For all the horrible things you can say about drone strikes, there has never before been such an efficient method of specifically killing enemy leaders in a war zone. Look at WW2 and Vietnam, and how many innocent civilians were killed for every high level enemy leader. The drone strikes in tribal Pakistan, even by the measure of Pakistan's own critics of them, manage better than 50% of their victims as bonafide militants. This includes a long list of high level Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders. Loss of civilian life is always tragic, but to kill 1 thousand militants and a thousand bystanders each year, while those same militants kill 10s of thousands of civilians on purpose is on the whole a good trade. Truth be told, if the Pak army was at the helm of the drones, the praises of the program would be unending. It's a combined pride and distrust of America thing.

I also think guys over here complaining need to better appreciate the ground situation over in places like tribal Pakistan. Tribal Pakistan is exactly that, a series of tribal communities. Outsiders are either welcomed in as guest and friend, or ushered out as mortal enemy, with a number of social and ethical codes dictating which will apply. If you are living in a community, that whole community has embraced you as one of your own and on a large scale sharing common cause and values. Any tribal community that's accepted high level Taliban militants into their community is guaranteed to share an extreme form of Sharia law. The community will not tolerate the education of their young girls. Blasphemy and apostasy will be immediate death sentences, without trial. Rape victims will be stoned and/or killed for adultery, as is only right. Our high standards of morality over here absolutely demand we still declare those people civilians, and mark their deaths as such, but the notion of them being potential allies turned enemies because of drone strikes is absurd.

There are also sects of Buddhism that advocate torture, execution and public humiliation (The former Tibetan ruling class springing firmly to mind). Sadly it seems even the most peaceful of philosophies can still be trumped by psychotic self righteousness & mindless tradition .

I'm not aware of any specific Sufi sects having executed or tortured people for blasphemy, adultery etc. but I fear such groups likely exist somewhere if one were to go looking for them.

In general I have a healthy degree of respect for "Sufism" because it follows the same kind of esoteric approach to religion/spirituality/knowledge as it's western (Gnostic) and far eastern (Tao, Hindu*, Buddhist etc.) counterparts.

Very roughly "Esoteric religion" is based around looking inwards for knowledge and lends itself naturally to scientific enquiry, considered ethics, critical thinking etc.
When they speak of a higher power it is almost always in terms of something fundamentally connected to and embodied by yourself.
They almost never suggest one need feel threatened by divine judgement, or that some should be privileged over others (*hence the Hindu caste system being not being truly esoteric)

"Exoteric religion" (most of Islam, Judaism, Christianity etc.) is by contrast based around looking outside oneself for knowledge. Truth is revealed by outside agents, divinity and true power always lie outside of oneself. etc. etc. (I'm sure I don't need to further elucidate the negative qualities of such belief systems )


In truth all of the major denominations appear to have at least some some esoteric and exoteric variations even if most fall mostly into one or the other. There are bad Buddhists & Gnostics and there are good Muslims and Christians the only difference really is whether or not they are genuinely applying their own minds and judgement, or hopelessly enslaved to another's.
Or in "someone" else's terms Logos and Mythos.

Back on topic: Bill Maher is Mythos masquerading as Logos.

Fake this is a hired acting group led by "Electric Eel Man"

you hire Electric Eel Man to come up with fake premises from incest to adultery, to faked confessions to air on the radio and boost ratings.

he's also used by Howard Stern almost daily

here's his promo advertisement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81xQxh2-I0o

he has a cast of about 10 and after you catch a few outrageous calls on radio you'll start to recognize the voices.

Phil Hendrie does his own voices but other "shock jocks" have to hire outside works like this guy 'Electric Eel Man'

Tags for this video have been changed from 'BriTANick, victims' to 'BriTANick, victims, adultery, secrets, reveal, scapegoat' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^bareboards2:

Jezebel lists all the claims http://jezebel.c
om/5948186/birth-control-is-turning-the-men-gay-14-lessons-from-the-most-bizarre-anti+contraception-video-ever
1. Birth control will make it so no man wants to have sex with you.
2. Contraception confuses men and has led to an exponential increase in sluttery.
3. Whore pills will cause your monkey husband to divorce you, and then turn gay.
4. Taking The Pill will literally kill you.
5. Those harlot-enablers you're taking once a day? The same thing as baby murder.
6. Estrogen is in the tap water and it is turning us all into transsexuals.
7. Birth control causes adultery, divorce, abortion, homosexuality, sexually transmitted diseases, promiscuity, adultery, divorce, abortion, homosexuality, sexually transmitted diseases, promiscuity, adultery, divorce, abortion, homosexuality, sexually transmitted diseases,and promiscuity.
8. Let's just come out and say it: birth control means not enough white babies.
9. "The whole birth control mentality" means we get to decide when and how life comes about.
10. That stuff about there not being enough babies? J/K, we only mean there aren't enough babies when we're talking about babies who aren't born from IVF.
11. Contraceptecons are leading to beastiality and sex with children.
12. Sterilization bad because people are more important than racehorses.
13. Pregnancy is not a risk, it's a privilege.
and finally
14. A bunch of dead guys think that contraception is bad.
Popes, guys with woodcut portraits, out-of-context quotes from the Bible. Who can argue with a bunch of dead guys who were never pregnant?


I wish I could *promote this summary...

Jezebel lists all the claims http://jezebel.com/5948186/birth-control-is-turning-the-men-gay-14-lessons-from-the-most-bizarre-anti+contraception-video-ever

1. Birth control will make it so no man wants to have sex with you.
2. Contraception confuses men and has led to an exponential increase in sluttery.
3. Whore pills will cause your monkey husband to divorce you, and then turn gay.
4. Taking The Pill will literally kill you.
5. Those harlot-enablers you're taking once a day? The same thing as baby murder.
6. Estrogen is in the tap water and it is turning us all into transsexuals.
7. Birth control causes adultery, divorce, abortion, homosexuality, sexually transmitted diseases, promiscuity, adultery, divorce, abortion, homosexuality, sexually transmitted diseases, promiscuity, adultery, divorce, abortion, homosexuality, sexually transmitted diseases,and promiscuity.
8. Let's just come out and say it: birth control means not enough white babies.
9. "The whole birth control mentality" means we get to decide when and how life comes about.
10. That stuff about there not being enough babies? J/K, we only mean there aren't enough babies when we're talking about babies who aren't born from IVF.
11. Contraceptecons are leading to beastiality and sex with children.
12. Sterilization bad because people are more important than racehorses.
13. Pregnancy is not a risk, it's a privilege.

and finally

14. A bunch of dead guys think that contraception is bad.
Popes, guys with woodcut portraits, out-of-context quotes from the Bible. Who can argue with a bunch of dead guys who were never pregnant?

Why does no one (ie a reporter) ever call a guy like newt out on the race baiting he engages in in this interview?

He really strikes me as a vile human being with no morals at all, about anything. A hypocrite of extraordinary proportions, nourished by the sound of his own voice, with an enormous appetite for adultery, an insatiable thirst for publicity and he calls someone else lazy... Newts fat, thats what I'm saying.

One can only imagine what could have happened if he were President.

Before any quotes, I'll give my own overarching point: Life without a higher purpose may be ultimately meaningless (I'll get more into what sense I mean), and that makes life more difficult than if there were ultimate meaning, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the truth value of the existence of Yahweh. You cannot derive Yahweh's existence (or any deity or pantheon) from your claim that life is easier that way. [Edit: Turns out I never actually get to that conclusion in my comments below, so you might as well address it here, but after you've read the rest.]

The point was never that a meaningless Universe makes life more difficult; you simply decided that was the point. The point the video makes, and which I have also been making, is that you are suffering from cognitive dissonance by having no ultimate justification for your value system, but living as if you do. You admit that under atheism the Universe is meaningless, and so we've been debating on whether you can find any justification for a value system in a meaningless Universe. The explanation you have ultimately given me is that you believe there is a right and wrong, and people do have value, because you feel it. Do you realize this proves what I have been saying all along?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is the term used in modern psychology to describe the state of holding two or more conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously.

Your atheism tells you that life without God is meaningless. Your feelings tell you that life is meaningful. These are two conflicting cognitions. Instead of realizing that and re-evaluating your atheism, you say that you don't know why and you don't care. That is the very definition of cognitive dissonance.

But the fact is that somehow, in the context of my own little 80-year microblip in the lifespan of our planet, I do care. I just do. I have nothing more than a pet theory about why I care. I care, and I care a lot. I suppose I'm somewhat curious as to why I care, but it's not of primary importance for me to know. I just do, and it's pleasing to notice that just about everyone else around me does too. The only question for me is how to follow this desire of mine to be good given my circumstances.

The facts are simple: the existence of God explains everything that you feel about wanting to do good, and the love that you have for people and life, and your atheism denies it. Yet you embrace what is contrary to your own experience.

And why should I reject being a slave to chemicals? The chemicals MAKE ME FEEL GOOD, remember? Should I purposefully do things that make me feel bad? Why on Earth would I even consider it? Ridiculous.

So if it makes you feel good its okay to be a slave? You don't mind being enslaved to a mindless irrational process because you get rewarded for it like a rat activating a feeder?

I reject the description that I live my life "as a Christian does", as if Christians invented or have some original claim being good. All humans, regardless of faith or lack thereof, believe in the value of humans (or, any societies that don't value humans go extinct very quickly). We all generally shun murder and violence, foster mutual care, enjoy one another's company, feel protective, have a soft spot for babies and so forth, and have been doing all of this as a species since before Christianity began.

So I would turn it around and say instead that it's Christians who go about their lives living like normal humans, but thinking they're being good because their religion tells them to.

Most people in this world (around 85 - 90 percent) are theists. If we are going to talk about universal belief in this world then it is theism which is normal. That is historically where our morality comes from. Everyone who believes in God has an ultimate justification for right and wrong, but atheists do not. So I will modify this and say that you're living like a theist does but denying it with your atheism.

I can claim that I have a stronger sense of what's right and wrong than the psychopath simply because they are defined as lacking that sense (or, perhaps non-psychopaths are defined as people having that sense). And you're right that I do not claim that my way of determining which actions are appropriate is inherently superior to the psychopath's. As it happens, my way of determining morality puts me among the overwhelming majority, and so it's relatively easy for me to mitigate the negative impacts of people like that by identifying and avoiding them. I don't say that my way should be preferred to the pshychopath's; I just notice that it is, and I'm grateful for that, and for the fact that psychopathy is not a choice.

Actually, psychopaths do know right from wrong, but they don't care.

In any case, what you're saying here contradicts your later claim that my hypothetical about a society approving of child rape is ridiculous, and proves my point. You admit here that you couldn't say that your way of morality is superior to psychopathy, it just so happens that there are more of you than there are of them. You name that as the reason why your way should be preferred. Therefore what you're talking about is a herd morality.

Now think about if the situation were reversed and psychopaths were in the majority. Your version of morality would no longer be preferred, and psychopaths would no longer need to conform to your standards; you would need to conform to theirs. Whatever was normalized in a psychopathic society would be what was called good and whatever the psychopathic society rejected would be called evil. This is proof that everything I said was true. The entire point of my example was to show that if we simply have a herd morality where the majority tells us what is good and evil, then if the majority ever said child rape is good it would be. This is simply a fact. Whether you think it could happen or not is relevent to the point.

You're drowning in a sea of relativism, where a justifies b and b justifies c and c justifies d, and this goes into an infinite regress.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Can you give an example of a justification to infinite regression that would cause some kind of problem unique to non-thesitic morality?

I'll get to this later.

I don't accept that it's any more natural to worship Yahweh than some other deity or pantheon or idol, and I can't imagine how you could justify such a position without referring to dogma. Ask a Muslim. He'll tell you with the same conviction that Allah is the natural way and show you his own dogma. 100 years ago, a Japanese would have told you it was natural to worship the Emperor, and today he'd say it's natural to worship ancestors. My point is that any worship will satisfy our natural urge to worship, which is why almost all people worship something, and the object of worship you're brought up around is the one you're most likely to be comfortable with worshipping, naturally.

The reason I said this was in reply to your assertion that we developed religion because it answered questions and made us feel comfortable. My point was that we all come pre-programmed with a need for worship, which you apparently agree with. That is what is natural to us. It has nothing to do with whether it is more or less natural to worship Jesus. It is actually more natural for us to rebel against God because of our corrupt nature. It's only through personal revelation that we direct our worship in the right direction.

People don't naturally conclude life is meaningless; they know from their experience that it is very meaningful. They are taught it is meaningless through philosophy and the ennui that comes from modern life. You will never find a population of natural atheists anywhere on the planet.

The problem —and one that I fell into myself— is the conflation of two senses of the word "meaningless". For example, I can say without conflict that the planet and humanity is doomed and so forth, so our actions are ultimately meaningless, AND that interacting with people gives meaning to my life. Now, in the first sense, I mean there's no teleological purpose to my life. In the second sense, I mean certain people and things in my life give fulfillment/bliss.

The sense we agreed upon and have been discussing is that that life without God is meaningless. In this sense, it is still equally meaningless whether human civilization implodes or doesn't implode. Therefore the meaning you derive from your feelings is only an illusion created by chemical reactions in your brain.

Your anecdotal evidence about depression doesn't make you an authority on *the single cause* of depression. Some depressives follow your pattern, and others don't. I don't. When I'm depressed, my feeling isn't hopelessness. In fact, these days, I'm feeling rather hopeless, but I'm not depressed.

You can feel hopeless and not be depressed, but the source of the depression is almost always hopelessness. I'll give you some examples. If you put all of the worlds depressed people in a very large room, and gave each of them a check for 10 million dollars, you will have instantly cured around 80 percent of them. The majority of depression comes being stuck in a bad situation that you don't feel like you can change, situations that cause a lot of stress and unhappiness. A lot of money buys a lot of change. Many of the rest are probably depressed because of health issues, and if you could offer them a cure (hope), they would be cured as well. The remainder are probably depressed because of extreme neurosis. There are other causes of depression but you see my point. Hope is the solution to depression.

It's not my hope. I believe that dead is dead. Much simpler than your belief. Much more likely too. You're implying that I'm following some faulty reasoning about the afterlife. Among the things I don't know are an *infinite number of possibilities* of what could happen in the afterlife, one of which is your bible story. My best guess is nothing. Since nobody's ever come back from the dead to talk about it (Did nobody interview Lazarus? What a great opportunity missed!), nobody knows, so there's no reason to speculate about it ever. Your book says whatever it says, and I don't care because to me it's fairy tales. I'd have to be an idiot to live my life differently because of a book I didn't first believe in. Just like you'd be an idiot to live like a non-believer if you believe so much in Yahweh.

On what basis do you say your belief is more likely?

Someone has come back from the dead to talk about it: Jesus Christ. You don't have to believe the bible; you can ask Him yourself. You say there is no reason to speculate (ever); now that is an interesting statement from someone who believes in open inquiry. What you've said is actually the death of inquiry. And let's be clear about this; you have speculated. You are basing your conclusion on no evidence but merely your atheistic presuppositions about reality. You say no one has come back but one man has, but of course you dismiss the account as fantasy (again because of your atheistic presuppositions).

I would also ask how you think the brain understands the complex moral scenarios we find ourselves in and rewards or doesn't reward accordingly? Doesn't that seem fairly implausible to you?

It's quite plausible. I'm no biologist, but I'm sure there's a branch of evolutionary biology that deals with social feelings. My own pet theory is that these feelings are comparable to the ones that control the behaviour of all communal forms of life, like ants and zebras and red-winged blackbirds. It's evolution, either way, IMO.

Of course anything is possible when you summon your magic genie of evolution. "Time itself performs the miracles for you."

What makes someone a bad person?

In the absolute sense, religious faith, only, can bring that kind of judgement as a meaningful label.

In the relative sense where I would colloquially refer to someone as "a bad person" (my prime minister, Stephen Harper is an example), I mean someone who has shown they are sufficiently disruptive to other people's happiness due to acting too much in their own self-interest that they're best removed from influence and then avoided. But I would only use that term as a shorthand among people who knew that I don't moralize absolutely.

So no one is really bad?

Do you think this could have something to do with the fact that the bible says you should do things you don't want to do, or that you should stop doing things you don't want to stop doing?

An interesting question, but no. I don't believe it because everything I see points all religion being a human invention.

Well, I'm fairly sure you've told me before that you hate the idea of God telling you what to do.

Your hypothetical is an appeal to the ridiculous. It simply is a fact that just about everyone —including child rapists, I'm guessing— believes that child rape is wrong for the simple reason that it severely hurts children. If it increases a person's suffering, then it's wrong. I can think of nothing simpler. Your hypothetical is like one where a passage in the bible prescribed child rape. Would it be OK then? Does the bible that say that rape is wrong? Does it say you cannot marry a child?

I've covered this above, but I will also add that if we had evolved differently, then in your worldview, all of this would be moot. We are only in this particular configuration because of circumstance, and not design. It could just as easily be 1000 different other ways. There could easily be scenarios where we evolved to exploit children instead of nuture them.

In both cases, you didn't address my point. 1) I'm stating that Yahweh's laws are far, far more complex than secular morality. You countered that Yahweh's laws were as simple as Jesus' two rules. I showed that was wrong with my AIDS in Africa example (condoms saving lives). You can address that, or you can agree that Yahweh's laws are more complex that Harris' model of secular morality.

I hope I don't need to point out that the bible says nothing about condoms. Gods morality is really as simple as the two greatest commandments because if you follow those you will follow all the rest:

Romans 13:9-10

The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

When you love your neighbor and love God you are basically doing the whole law right there. There are some particulars that can emerge in different situations just like we have laws for different situations, and so Harris would have to accommodate those as well.

2) I also pointed out that Jesus gave us a moral model that requires the individual to determine for themselves based on fixed criteria what's good and what's not. "… as you would have your neighbour do unto you…" implicitly requires the individual to compare their actions with what they themselves would want someone else to do to them. That means relying on their own understanding. This contradicts your other statements that we shouldn't rely on our own understanding. You see? To follow Jesus' second law, you must rely on your own understanding.

Yes, in this case we would rely on our own understanding, as informed by the biblical worldview. What scripture is saying when it says "lean not on your own understanding" is that we make God the Lord of our reasoning. So, when we think about doing unto others, we would think about it in the context of how Jesus taught us to behave.

[you:]What about all of Pagan societies throughout the ages that sacrificed their children to demons?

You're making my point for me. Paganism is religion. Non-believers would never justify a habit of killing their own children.

Yes they would:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,880,00.html

So your answer is yes? You think that without religion, society may decide torturing babies is good because it decided that killing Jews was good?

[me:]If you think I’m being ridiculous, what do you think is more likely: that a society somewhere will suddenly realize that they feel just fine about torturing babies, or that a society somewhere will get the idea that it’s their god’s will that they torture babies? Human instinct is much more consistent than the will of any gods ever recorded.

Yes, I think an entire society could end up agreeing on something that depraved, just like the ancient Greek society approved of paedophilia. You also act as if I am trying to defend all religion, which I'm not. There are plenty of sick and depraved religions out there, and religions can easily corrupt a culture, like islam has done to the Arab culture.

In any case, there are many examples of non-believing societies doing sick and depraved things to their populations. Millions of Christians were murdered by communists in the 1940's and 50's. I highly recommend you read this book:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gracealoneca.com%2Fsitebuildercontent%2Fsitebu
ilderfiles%2Ftortured_for_christ.pdf&ei=PSNiUIyTCsPqiwLYtYGQCw&usg=AFQjCNG-ro4rM7dfvFCkgIvjnmgdhQnSPA&cad=rja

The fact is, in a meaningless Universe you simply can't prove anything without God. You actually have no basis for logic, rationality, morality, uniformity in nature, but you live as if you do. If I ask you how you know your reasoning is valid, you will reply "by using my reasoning".

You're slipping back into solipsism. We agreed not to go there. I'm not going to answer any of those things.

Now you're just trying to duck the issue, and perhaps you don't understand what solipsism is, because this is not solipsism. Solipsism is the belief that only your mind is sure to exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

What I am talking about is right in line with the video. Without God you don't have any ultimate justification not just for any kind of value, but even for your own reasoning. It is a direct implication of a meaningless existence. This is what I mean about a justifies b justifies c justifies d into infinity. You have nowhere to stake a claim which can justify anything which you experience, or even your own rationality. If you feel you do, please demonstrate why you believe your reasoning is actually valid.

>> ^messenger:

stuff

No. I'm not going to study theology to help you make your case. Where you show you don't understand science or logic, I try and explain it to you. You are the self-proclaimed god expert in the room, and the one who wants us all to believe what you're saying, so when I ask you a fair question about Yahweh, I expect you to either give me an answer, admit you can't explain it, or accept that your original assertion is false.

"Why did God do X" isn't the right question because it relies on the assumption that God exists and in fact did X. A better question is, "Is it reasonable to believe that a god who does X, Y, and Z exists?"

So yes, you gave me a lot to work with in the sense that you wrote a lot, but the way you write makes it very hard to make connected arguments if I have to come back and ask you for clarifications and detail on your fantastic assertions, and you reply either defensively or with more vague and fantastic assertions. Surely you can put yourself in my shoes and anticipate my questions at least a little bit. Unlike most here, I'm actually trying to understand your point of view, so it's worth using words that I'm more likely to accept.>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^messenger:
@shinyblurry
Please keep in mind when you answer me that I’m not asking you for the details because it’s an interesting story and I want to know all of the lore like a Star Wars fanboy. I’m asking because -- unlike the majority of people you probably speak with -- I’m giving your faith every benefit of the doubt I reasonably can as a rational person. For me to accept the story, it must hold together. For it to hold, all apparent problems must be resolved without relying on tautology.
My main thrust in this particular comment thread is dealing with the issue that for everything that appears impossible or utterly fantastic to me, when I raise it, you explain it, but with something else equally fantastic (Asserting that God has to punish us for our sins is just as fantastical as asserting that God doesn’t want to punish us), so I’m not left understanding things any better. So, I challenge that new thing, and on it goes until you run out of scripture.
Then, although my questions are as valid as before, you have no real answers. At these times you give quasi-answers: you phrase your answers in the passive voice (“…what was required…”); you answer with a leading question that asserts a comparison without your having to say they're equal (“Wouldn’t you…?”), with a rhetorical question (“Could it be that…?”), or a poor analogy rather than a declarative (The King’s law about adultery, or comparing rapists going to prison with lapsed church-goers (one example of a mortal sin) being sent to Hell); or you criticize how I’m thinking (“…instead of trying to constantly falsify it, you might actually try studying what Christian theologians (and not skeptics) have said about it.”; and, “use some common sense”). So my question doesn't get answered.
So, as you're talking to a group of mostly logical, scientific-minded sceptics here, why not frame your answers so they make sense to your audience? Ask yourself the next logical sceptical question that springs from the answer you just gave until you arrive at something that really makes sense.

I gave you quite a bit to work with in my replies. The reason I suggested reading the works of theologians is because they discuss the very things you are inquiring about "Why did God do X?", and that very in depth. These are issues which are not entirely concrete because God does not always tell us why He does "X". Some things can be inferred, some things can be logically deduced, and some things are yet a mystery.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Yet.

And I mean that. >> ^bcglorf:
This can't be overstated. Abhorrent as the Tea Party may be, they aren't actively executing their political opposition and they aren't trying to institute death by stoning for women convicted of adultery(eg. being rape victims).
>> ^messenger:
"EDITOR’S NOTE: While they have way too much in common, the actual Taliban uses political violence to achieve its ends and the Tea Party doesn’t — and that’s an important distinction." --moveon.org




I do agree with this sentiment as the Taliban does it's "thing" differently, it should be made known though that tonight (and other talks too) at the RNC convention there was a large outcry for: making sure we have the best military ever and forever, ever; and, Iran and Syria, we may attack you at random if we have Republicans in office, so just keep yourselves on your toes. Oh and if you didn't know, we didn't need to really talk to anyone in the world about anything because, America is NUMBER FUCKING ONE AND YOU BETTER FUCKING KNOW YOUR PLACE!!!

Atleast, that is how it came across to me as a whole... So, as we have a VERY powerful military I'd say that we are a very active terrorizer of other countries (NOT just Syria and Iran; Mitt decided that Cold War part two was an excellent idea/threat to make). They may not be the Taliban, but they have a Pandora's Box that I imagine if opened and used, kills FAR more than the Taliban could ever hope to accomplish, both good and bad guys...

But, basically that was the entire gist of the "foreign policy" talked about. I'm sure the world is enamored with us right now, we can just ask people on here: If you thought the RNC speech's were extremely pro-American "Empire'ish" making many of the talks rude, condescending, and downright scary... Please vote me up. Otherwise, go for the opposite (remember this should be for the foreign crowd, if your the U.S. just reply or you can vote down, and then I'll just assume your a Teabagger).

@MarineGunrock not really going against anything you said (what you said was right anyhow and feeds into what I'm saying), I just wanted to grab all the quotes you had.

Yet.



And I mean that. >> ^bcglorf:

This can't be overstated. Abhorrent as the Tea Party may be, they aren't actively executing their political opposition and they aren't trying to institute death by stoning for women convicted of adultery(eg. being rape victims).
>> ^messenger:
"EDITOR’S NOTE: While they have way too much in common, the actual Taliban uses political violence to achieve its ends and the Tea Party doesn’t — and that’s an important distinction." --moveon.org

>> ^bcglorf:

This can't be overstated. Abhorrent as the Tea Party may be, they aren't actively executing their political opposition, they aren't trying to keep girls out of school by throwing acid in their faces and they aren't trying to institute death by stoning for women convicted of adultery(eg. being rape victims).
>> ^messenger:
"EDITOR’S NOTE: While they have way too much in common, the actual Taliban uses political violence to achieve its ends and the Tea Party doesn’t — and that’s an important distinction." --moveon.org



But they sure made a point of ensuring that everyone knew they were gathering up their guns now, didn't they? Or are we forgetting all those weapons turning up at political rallies a few years ago?

I'd say that was pretty clearly intended as intimidation through threats of violence. Different, maybe in scale...but still terrorist actions.