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?

The number of attacks on this country will skyrocket if Trump wins, simply because it would be far easier to radicalize people after that. Trump and the Republican party are doing everything they can to appease what ISIS wants us to do, making their job easier.

And while this guy was a Muslim, the constant labeling of him as being with ISIS is a bit out there. Yes he claimed allegiance to ISIS, but he also claimed allegiance to Hezbollah, a group opposed to ISIS that is in fact doing a lot of the fighting against them. So it seems more likely that he was taken in by the anti-gay rhetoric of religion (one shared by the far right Christians) and stepped it up to a mass murder rampage.

Nobody would call those guy who took over the Oregon facility Radicalized Christian Terrorists, though that's what they were. They did it in the name of Christ, saying that God was the one who told them to do it. You don't blame a whole religion for an act of a few radical members. The right then complains that regular Muslims don't do enough to protest the actions of those few, but I don't see masses of Christians counter protesting the God Hates Fags people who are protesting soldier funerals, or will be at the funerals of the people killed at this club... in fact I saw the God Hates Fags people there at the scene and there wasn't a big crowd of Christians fighting against the radicalized Christians spreading hate... Matthew 7:5 may apply to their attitude towards the situation...

Seriously? That's your response? Some people agree with bob so it's ok to post racist shit? Allow me to post child porn then, allow me to post some WBC "god hates fags" shit. Some people agree with that shit, so by that logic, it must be allowed. Your guidelines say don't post racist stuff, but I must have missed the part that said "unless some people agree with it, then it's ok"

You're worried about group think? on the internet???? HAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHA! You're tilting against windmills on that one because you're a little late to the party, dag. Besides, if racism not being tolerated is group think, then sign me up! EVERY site...EVERY SITE leans a certain way, dictated by the particular community (even a dying community like ours). If this nonsense of "some people agree with it" exemption is your new excuse, then you're no better than CNN or other media outlets, who allow all sorts preposterous shit to air, because they're trying to pretend to be 50/50 on every issue, and don't debunk things that they know are incorrect...because hey..some people believe it, so it's ok. Or is it just to feed the controversy and get more clicks? Cuz that's another thing the press does. They don't care about reality, they just want that sweet ad revenue.

I don't get what the problem is, you've banned people for racist stuff before, why is it so difficult now? These are your own rules dag. When are you going to enforce them? If you're not going to enforce them, then take those rules down. If you're not going to do that, then you might as well shut this site down, or just revel in the apathy that surrounds this site and enjoy your sycophantic upvotes?

You've got ample evidence, you've got a slew of clearly racist videos, you've got him abusing the ignore system in regards to @newtboy, and all you have to do is look at his comment history to see more reasons to get him out of here.

Do your job!

Would you feel more comfortable if he wore a white hood? Maybe talk about 'gang lifestyle'?
I prefer my racists in white hoods and displaying swastikas, so I don't have to wade through subtext to id them. Open racism is stupid but at least honest. I despise political correctness and its ability to sugarcoat hatred. I'd rather engage a Neo-Nazi or white pride, god-hates-fags biblethumper than a Rick Santorum or Bill O'Reilly who are too much of a coward to say what they believe because they know how the broad public reacts.
The notion of not publicly voicing those idiotic, inhuman opinions because its offensive is more offensive to me than the opinion itself. I'd like to know if you're an idiot.
I believe in freedom of speech, even if that proves you're a terrible idiot. You have a right to be.

And now wake me up from that strange dream where I defend @lantern53.

Decorate my 'God hates fags cake' says the Westboro Baptist Church.

The crucial difference is that the WBC doesn't issue death threats toward novelists/cartoonists, unless they've evolved their God Hates Fags campaign, that is.

Plus the international media is more than happy to paint the WBC with true colors: the same can't be said about the media's response to the muslim reaction toward Salmon Rushdie/Dutch Newspaper/Matt Stone/Trey Parker/et al.

But I take your point.

Yeah! Damn those gays holding up signs like "GOD HATES FAGS" outside soldiers' funerals and passing laws denying gays the same rights as straights.

Oh wait --

God hates fags. Yet he's represented by dicks and assholes. Irony? Discuss...

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

I like the cut of your jib.>> ^enoch:

when i first engaged shiny i mistook him for a troll.
i have since changed my position.
shiny is a believer.
and this belief is derived with the certainty that the bible is the un-erring word of god and ALL his philosophy flows from that point.
this is not something he keeps obscure or hidden but is quite upfront about it,so it should come as no surprise when he responds in the way he does.
give the man some credit for taking the time to respond to the massive amounts of flack he gets.
feel free to disagree with him (hell,i do...and often)but remember he is taking the time to respond and engage with you.
i also feel he deserves a bit of leeway when he gets a bit testy.very often comments are directed towards him as if he IS religion,or that he somehow represents fred phelps "god hates fags" and therefore should be treated with disdain.
cant blame a man for getting a tad defensive.
he is just a man who has a belief based on the bible and to attack him based just on that belief wastes a fantastic opportunity to understand WHY a person may hold that belief.
it is only through respectful interaction that a more complete and full understanding can be achieved.
i may disagree with shiny but i find him a pleasant individual.

Thanks Enoch..I enjoy your company as well, and I appreciate you saying that..because I am still often accused of being a troll. And yes, I admit have been an asshat at times and said stupid things. It's hard not to want to respond to insults, but, when you don't I think it is something that builds character. Videosift has made me a more patient person.

I think there is just a strain of intolerance in the atheist community, that has become this militant antitheism, where you can't have decent conversation because everything being said is laced with insults and condescension. Videosift isn't really that bad in comparison to some atheist forums I frequent..and it isn't just me, because as soon as you open your mouth you have about 100 people all simultaneously ganging up on you and saying some really vicious things.

I know this isn't the way it should be, as we have seen on some of the more thoughtful debates on God. Where people actually treat eachother civilally and have thoughtful questions and answers. I think a lot of atheists want to act like it isn't even a valid question, or it has been sufficiently disproved, or it is something only stupid people believe, but that is flatly untrue. Even Hitchens said it was the greatest conversation you could have because the question of God leads to all the other important questions. So I think if people took that chip off their shoulder and gave the topic the consideration it deserves, all of this enmity could be avoided.

>> ^enoch:
when i first engaged shiny i mistook him for a troll.
i have since changed my position.
shiny is a believer.
and this belief is derived with the certainty that the bible is the un-erring word of god and ALL his philosophy flows from that point.
this is not something he keeps obscure or hidden but is quite upfront about it,so it should come as no surprise when he responds in the way he does.
give the man some credit for taking the time to respond to the massive amounts of flack he gets.
feel free to disagree with him (hell,i do...and often)but remember he is taking the time to respond and engage with you.
i also feel he deserves a bit of leeway when he gets a bit testy.very often comments are directed towards him as if he IS religion,or that he somehow represents fred phelps "god hates fags" and therefore should be treated with disdain.
cant blame a man for getting a tad defensive.
he is just a man who has a belief based on the bible and to attack him based just on that belief wastes a fantastic opportunity to understand WHY a person may hold that belief.
it is only through respectful interaction that a more complete and full understanding can be achieved.
i may disagree with shiny but i find him a pleasant individual.

when i first engaged shiny i mistook him for a troll.
i have since changed my position.
shiny is a believer.
and this belief is derived with the certainty that the bible is the un-erring word of god and ALL his philosophy flows from that point.
this is not something he keeps obscure or hidden but is quite upfront about it,so it should come as no surprise when he responds in the way he does.

give the man some credit for taking the time to respond to the massive amounts of flack he gets.
feel free to disagree with him (hell,i do...and often)but remember he is taking the time to respond and engage with you.
i also feel he deserves a bit of leeway when he gets a bit testy.very often comments are directed towards him as if he IS religion,or that he somehow represents fred phelps "god hates fags" and therefore should be treated with disdain.
cant blame a man for getting a tad defensive.

he is just a man who has a belief based on the bible and to attack him based just on that belief wastes a fantastic opportunity to understand WHY a person may hold that belief.
it is only through respectful interaction that a more complete and full understanding can be achieved.
i may disagree with shiny but i find him a pleasant individual.

It sounds like a victory for the "god hates fags" crowd. I can't wait to watch future cases of "my religious beliefs trump your basic human rights" in the news. What better way to protect the young ignorant zealots they're raising to do battle against the heathens.

Beyond disgusting.

Ah yes, we can't have a nuanced approach to anything can we?

All we can have are two camps screaming at each other across a divide.
"You can't use faggot!! Ever!!"
"Fuck you! stop oppressing my right to be a dick!"

The word faggot actually means a bundle of twigs. That's it, no more no less.

Context is everything. I will frequently describe things as "gay". It's not grown-up or mature, but I don't particularly want to spend my life being grown-up and mature all the time.

Now, there's a world of difference between me calling a friend "gay" when he pussies out of something (yeah, that term too*), and holding up a sign that says "god hates fags". One is affectionate (not that affectionate! ), the other is hateful.

"Cunt" is considered just about the most pejorative term in the english language, but it's frequently used a term of endearment where I grew up (west of ireland, we swear. a lot.) See black guys calling each other nigger.

Again, context. I would never call someone I didn't know a "cunt" or a "fag" as an insult, and if I saw someone doing it, I'd call them on it.

* if I can use "cock" as a swear, I fail to see why I can't use "pussy".

Not to bring the mood down, but it's truly pathetic that they have that little kid dawning a "God Hates Fags" shirt.

Why do they even make kid sizes of that shirt?