>> ^direpickle:

>> ^MaxWilder:
Are you sure Owling is the right name of this sport? I can't find any info on it.

I was making an absolutely hilarious reference to this other video: <div id="widget_1897161312"><script src="http://videosift.com/widget.js?video=201872&width=500&comments=15&minimized=1" type="text/javascript"></script></div><script>s=document.createElement('script');s.type='text/javascript';s.src='http://videosift.com/widget.js?video=
201872&width=500&comments=15&minimized=1';document.getElementById('widget_1897161312').appendChild(s);</script>


Gotcha. Gonna go Owl on my front lawn now. Where it's safe.

I sometimes think that, too, but we both know it's not going to happen.

I like a good argument, but there comes a point where there's just no point in it anymore.

Looking forward to joking around with the crew.

Good to see you, too.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Ah, gotcha. Yeah, you need to keep an eye on the blood pressure, buddy.

Well, debating politics on the internet does next to no good. And I think this site would be better if we didn't speak any of it.

Good to have you back.

In reply to this comment by rougy:
Hey Blankie.

I've been trying to avoid the politico thing. My blood pressure is through the roof.

I'm not sure it does any good any more.

Good to see you.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Yo! Where've you been? There are some invigorating debates about the politico these days. Some real humdingers, as the youngin's these days say.

Ah, gotcha. Yeah, you need to keep an eye on the blood pressure, buddy.

Well, debating politics on the internet does next to no good. And I think this site would be better if we didn't speak any of it.

Good to have you back.

In reply to this comment by rougy:
Hey Blankie.

I've been trying to avoid the politico thing. My blood pressure is through the roof.

I'm not sure it does any good any more.

Good to see you.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Yo! Where've you been? There are some invigorating debates about the politico these days. Some real humdingers, as the youngin's these days say.

Hrm... so the concord is African North American, and the airport is whitey.

Gotcha

*animation

gotcha covered, hpqp.

Gotcha...verrrrry interesting...consider my horizons expanded.
In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
it's my shtick to mock when I see people getting chastised by "the man" (usually played by daggy-pie)
In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
...same to you...you also haven't a clue about the situation.

I rather gave you more credit than that. Still so inclined actually.
In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
yea...go **** ****** ******** **** ****** ****** mother's mouth>> ^dag:

Just becaused you starred it out - it doesn't make it OK. We're not 'bots looking for bad words. These kinds of ad hom comments are against the guidelines of the Sift. Please desist.
In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
Awwwww...poor whiny ...don't worry, you'll always be Queenie of the dupes.
In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
http://videosift.com/poll/Would-it-be-helpful-to-have-a-notadupe-in
vocation

I wonder what the first "gotcha" moment she'd experience if she were elected POTUS.

Any question she can't answer is a "gotcha" type of question.

Do you read any newspapers? GOTCHA!
Do you know that Africa is a continent? GOTCHA!
Do you know what the vice president's job is? GOTCHA!

"A shout out 'gotcha' style question" ? Really? Wasn't she at a destination of historical significance that she maybe should have brushed up on the history of? Wasn't this destination on her agenda for weeks and planned forward? It's not like she just dropped in unexpectedly...

The original video is amazing, she stutters, she pauses, she makes it up as she goes along and clearly has no idea what she's getting at. Then in a rebuttal she claims it's a gotcha style question - This woman is hilarious and I don't want her to get a clue.

>> ^eric3579:




She sounds like a mentally ill person. She's right in saying what no one else has ever said/written about the topic at hand, and they are out to get her with "gotcha" type questions. Perhaps she's doing a long term Sheen meltdown.

Nice ambush. If you want to drag me into a thread, don't start it off by putting words in my mouth. It's extremely amusing how you're trying to set it all up; Okay, here is my comment on the video: This is complete bullshit. Yeah I really buy that she was just this sweet innocent little girl who had to study the bible and suddenly she is making militant antitheist videos on the internet. This has to be one of the least well adjusted girls I've ever seen..maybe she should quit her day job of appearing in wells because I've rarely seen such superbly edited mockery.

Here's my response about her entirely fabricated commentary. First of all, the verses she mentioned about pregnant women were prophecy about sinful nations who routinely sacrificed their own children to baal, among other things. God never ordered anyone to rip open pregnant women. That's completely false.

Here is a verse about slavery she missed:

"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death."

The idea of slavery in those days was far different than our modern version. In ancient Israel, people who couldn't provide for themselves or their families were sometimes sold into slavery so they wouldn't die of exposure or starvation. That person would receive housing and food in exchange for labor.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The bible teaches equality for all people, which was a new idea at the time. Anyone following the bible wouldn't have kept a slave. And if you want to talk about slavery, there has never been an abolitionist movement outside of the Christian west. Freeing slaves seems to have been a uniquely Christian virtue. So much for atheism saving the world. All of this hyperbole about slaves, where people are trying to play this bible gotcha-game shows a complete lack of understanding of the history and the cultures of the time, or what is actually in the bible in the first place. All in all, pretty damn pathetic.

This just further solidifies the idea that you have no sense of humor. It's ok, not everybody is perfect, but you're a woman so that shouldn't be news to you.>> ^bareboards2:

Oh. Okay.
I thought maybe it wasn't funny because it struck too close to a real sensitive fear that men have, of being able to "perform." And for a woman to make a "joke" about it -- WAY too uncomfortable.
Although I really did think it was possible that, given the context, it would be perceived as funny. I meant it as funny. I really thought @blankfist would think it was funny, a gotcha joke, a play on all the times I have warm fuzzied him by calling him truly soft-hearted. And on this particular sift talk, I thought it was even funnier.
But nooooo. Nobody thinks it is funny. Not a one. I didn't intend this, but it is like this attempted joke is radioactive.
I mean, even rottenseed doesn't troll me -- for the first time ever, you have communicated with me in a non-troll voice.
RADIOACTIVE.
And I think that is hysterical, given this sift talk topic.

>> ^rottenseed:
A)I stopped paying attention to this thread, I just clicked on it because I wanted to see how that cool troll logo was assigned to it
B) That wasn't a troll, that was a joke. And you don't solicit your jokes after saying (writing) them. That's the equivalent of saying a joke IRL then going "right guys? heh heh"
The joke was ok, but the timing was off. I feel like this thread isn't getting much action anymore. However I encourage you to try out your newly acquired roasting hobby in a more current video/sift-talk.

Oh. Okay.

I thought maybe it wasn't funny because it struck too close to a real sensitive fear that men have, of being able to "perform." And for a woman to make a "joke" about it -- WAY too uncomfortable.

Although I really did think it was possible that, given the context, it would be perceived as funny. I meant it as funny. I really thought @blankfist would think it was funny, a gotcha joke, a play on all the times I have warm fuzzied him by calling him truly soft-hearted. And on this particular sift talk, I thought it was even funnier.

But nooooo. Nobody thinks it is funny. Not a one. I didn't intend this, but it is like this attempted joke is radioactive.

I mean, even rottenseed doesn't troll me -- for the first time ever, you have communicated with me in a non-troll voice.

RADIOACTIVE.

And I think that is hysterical, given this sift talk topic.


>> ^rottenseed:

A)I stopped paying attention to this thread, I just clicked on it because I wanted to see how that cool troll logo was assigned to it
B) That wasn't a troll, that was a joke. And you don't solicit your jokes after saying (writing) them. That's the equivalent of saying a joke IRL then going "right guys? heh heh"
The joke was ok, but the timing was off. I feel like this thread isn't getting much action anymore. However I encourage you to try out your newly acquired roasting hobby in a more current video/sift-talk.

sighs..
/doublefacepalm
this is becoming....tiresome.
i came to the decision to stop being a snark towards shinyblurry because his tone had softened a bit and he appeared more willing to interact in a more human and engaging way.
since he stated he had been studying for years (specifically what he never states) i put forth a few questions.
i put a lot of thought in to those questions.
not to be an ass,or pull a gotcha nor even to be "right" but rather to hear his response.
the questions were really not that important but his answers would reveal much on how he viewed certain dilemmas facing todays evangelical christian.
and since he says he has studied for years i framed the questions with tidbits and items a first year seminarian would know and would have already dealt with.
i now suspect that when shinyblurry says he "has studied for years" he means personal study.
nothing wrong with that.
thats how i did it too for many years and then was blessed to meet one of the most amazing people who decided to mentor and teach me..dr paul.

@smooman
you totally missed the point of my post.
i was not attempting to prove the existence of these resurrection deities and by proxy disprove jesus.nor did i gank that from zeitgeist..so lets not get derailed.
the question was how does shinyblurry resolve this issue?
his answer was "satan did it".
now that answer from an evangelical perspective is expected but from an intellectual one it is weak.
i am NOT being an ass here,just pointing out what should be obvious.
"satan did it" is a cheap and lazy way out.

@shinyblurry
the questions i asked were conundrums.
you have to think your way through them...not dismiss out of hand.
you have focused on zoraorastrian.
posted links to pages.
may i just say up front that i am not interested in someones elses research nor their conclusions but rather very interested in yours.
my point bringing up zoraorastrian was to illuminate the fact that the bible has been influenced by MANY different and sometimes conflicting theologies,and written by many different authors.
thats why i mentioned gilgamesh.
does the fact that so many authored the bible take away from the its beauty?literature? wisdom?
not at all,but it does paint a picture that is far more human and i was curious how you resolved that issue being an evangelical.
you did answer.."satan"..(i really find that answer unsatisfactory btw)...but you did not say how you resolved that issue.unless "satan" is your true answer and in that case.ok..fair enough.

you never answered which school of theological thought you adhered to (you made me guess).
nor did you answer if you were a preterist.
which is just somebody who believes that messianic prophecy has already been fulfilled.(you wont find any these days.2000 yrs ago you would have though).
this question was in relation to how christianity has evolved over the centuries.
now my question concerning the nicean creed is actually a trick question because it has never been resolved.
325 a.d and the nicean creed was the third attempt and the council decided to stick with it but it never really resolves the trinity.because of this theological failure of the elder council millions over the years have perished and not a small reason chirtianity began to fracture in to smaller subsets...all gaining (and losing ) and gaining again prominence in the christian world.

the questions i asked would reveal if shinyblurry has limited his studies to the 66 books of the KJV or if he has expanded his studies.
again..not for a gotcha moment nor to belittle him, but rather so i would have an idea the parameters in our discussion.

i read the gospels far different than mainstream christianity.
i study origins.
i study the socio-economic and education of that period of time.
the cultural practices and institutions.
when you put all these factors together you gain a much more insightful and complete picture.
i guess i dont understand when someone ignores that very vital part of the equation.
hence my questions.
i wanted to know how shinyblurry dealt with these dilemmas or if he thought of them at all.

living in the bible belt i deal with evangelicals all the time.
in fact i spoke at a local baptist church a few weeks ago.
my sermon was "the mechanics of prayer".they were welcoming and responsive,conversely i have also been told by another group of evangelicals that i will burn in the pit of fire because my idea and understanding of scripture happened to be different from theirs.

i do not understand how some people conflate their religion as themselves.
as somehow they ARE their religion and if their religion comes under any criticism or scrutiny they react like it is THEY who are being personally attacked and lash out with violent intentions (disguised as righteousness).
religion is a system of doctrine and dogma with written scripture as a vehicle.
since scripture is the written word, it is tangible and therefore subject to scrutiny and/or criticism.
and thats how it SHOULD be.i do not know ONE theologian who would disagree with that statement but i have encountered hundreds who feel that ANY scrutiny of their holy text is tantamount to a personal attack upon them.

i was unsure if blurry was a troll or if he was even aware that he was coming across like one.
i am still not sure.
i was ok with making snarky remarks and match blurry tone for tone.until i realized i was behaving poorly and nothing positive would really come out of that form of interaction...maybe amusement for a time.
so i decided to take a different approach and all i got was more of the same.
sad..really.
what a wasted opportunity.
my expectations for this discussion have dwindled considerably.
religion is communal..
faith is personal.
i guess mine is so far removed from shinyblurry's that we are incapable of having a decent discussion with each other.

so there it is folks.as openly and as honestly as i am able.
with sincerity and humility i say this to you shinyblurry.
namaste.

No, I am.

Gotcha!