The problem with loving someone: someday, in some way, you'll have to let them go.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Why in the fuck should loving someone of the same sex be something that needs to be "cured"?
Ask the future parents who will have the option to choose their fetus' sexual preference, as well as height, disease-resistance and skin tone.

Rich people of the future may have these options. Your decendants on the other hand, Homo Hillbillius, will have to stick with the old trailer park technique: Breeding like cockroaches and discarding the weak.

Why in the fuck should loving someone of the same sex be something that needs to be "cured"?

Ask the future parents who will have the option to choose their fetus' sexual preference, as well as height, disease-resistance and skin tone.

Steering? They're not steering the election. But they're happy to ride shotgun and yank the wheel off the road when the candidates make the "gay agenda" a "problem" that they will use their presidential powers to "cure".

For now, 'Politigays' have too much power for their numbers. There are more than twice the number of left-handed Americans than Gay Americans, but who is demanding Left-Handed History be taught in schools (just left wing history)?

BTW did anyone but me listen to the end of the vid when Cain stated his personal beliefs are overridden by the limiting powers of the Constitution?





>> ^SuperChikan:

>> ^quantumushroom:
The Gay is likely genetic, but that means in a few decades it can be "cured". And 4% of the population has no business steering an entire election.
Cain, unlike Obama, seems to understand the Constitution limits presidential power. Good on him.

Why in the fuck should loving someone of the same sex be something that needs to be "cured"?
Steering? They're not steering the election. But they're happy to ride shotgun and yank the wheel off the road when the candidates make the "gay agenda" a "problem" that they will use their presidential powers to "cure".

>> ^quantumushroom:

The Gay is likely genetic, but that means in a few decades it can be "cured". And 4% of the population has no business steering an entire election.
Cain, unlike Obama, seems to understand the Constitution limits presidential power. Good on him.


Why in the fuck should loving someone of the same sex be something that needs to be "cured"?

Steering? They're not steering the election. But they're happy to ride shotgun and yank the wheel off the road when the candidates make the "gay agenda" a "problem" that they will use their presidential powers to "cure".

The other point to make here, is that google/facebook/twitter/whatever do no make LAWS that punishes people. They are private companies that are free to choose what not to publish/allow on their servers/channels. That is THEIR right. Being banned from youtube is not the same as being put in jail.
>> ^hpqp:

I imagine you're referencing those instances in which he speaks out against blasphemy laws, which have absolutely nothing to do with hate speech. Blasphemy laws make it illegal to criticise someone's beliefs, hate speech laws make it illegal to incite hatred and violence against people because of their nature (gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation).
I am all against blasphemy laws, but I support legislation against hate speech. It is not hate speech to say, for example, that the Qur'an (and the Bible/Torah for that matter) is full of violence, hate and intolerance, and that Mohammad was a warmongerer and a pedophile. It is hate speech to say that men and women deserve death and eternal torture for loving someone of the same sex, and I would go further: teaching that ignorant belief to children is not only spiteful and irresponsible, but is a form of child abuse.
>> ^marinara:
So hpqp, when Pat Condell complains about free speech being impinged by hate speech legislation, you're all against it. But when Christians say the exact same thing, you have to switch sides? Rhetorical question OFC.

I imagine you're referencing those instances in which he speaks out against blasphemy laws, which have absolutely nothing to do with hate speech. Blasphemy laws make it illegal to criticise someone's beliefs, hate speech laws make it illegal to incite hatred and violence against people because of their nature (gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation).

I am all against blasphemy laws, but I support legislation against hate speech. It is not hate speech to say, for example, that the Qur'an (and the Bible/Torah for that matter) is full of violence, hate and intolerance, and that Mohammad was a warmongerer and a pedophile. It is hate speech to say that men and women deserve death and eternal torture for loving someone of the same sex, and I would go further: teaching that ignorant belief to children is not only spiteful and irresponsible, but is a form of child abuse.

>> ^marinara:

So hpqp, when Pat Condell complains about free speech being impinged by hate speech legislation, you're all against it. But when Christians say the exact same thing, you have to switch sides? Rhetorical question OFC.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

ISSUE ONE: "If you conservatives are so 'Christian' then why don't you do what he taught and help the poor/widows/whatever?"
Where neolibs make their blunder on this subject is in equating "giving money to government programs" with "charity". Christ taught people to personally help the poor & needy. He did not say, "Do it by giving your paycheck to the government."
When a conservative doesn't support a bloated, inefficient, ineffective, government program, it does NOT mean that they are not charitable and generous. However, the typical "godless liberal" (as you put it) thinks that conservatives are literally stealing money from poor people when they say they want to cut these programs. It is the exact opposite. Conservatives want to cut these bad programs so that ALL people everywhere keep more of their money. It is a conservative's firm belief that more people keeping more of their money will result in (A) fewer poor people and (B) more wealth that private citizens can use to help others via voluntary donation.
Conservatives help the poor and needy by volunteering thier own time and talents to help those in need - NOT by offloading that responsibliity into the hollow, empty, soulless 'substitute charity' of a government program. Studies have proven conservative individuals give more money and time to charitable causes compared to liberals. Without fanfare and without desire of reward, they help the needy through personal volunteerism. That is Christian behavior.


Ok, good point. No wait, that's utter bollocks. The conservative agenda has systematically set up the economy over the last 50 years so that poor people are poorer and the middle class is disappearing. And then they bitch and whine when asked to contribute a few extra dollars.


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

ISSUE TWO: "If you conservatives are so Christian then why do you want to kill people all the time?"
The mistake neolibs make here is that they think that forgiving someone also means that you do not try to hold them accountable for thier actions. Conservatives don't do that. They try to follow Christ's example of forgiving others (loving them as fellow children of God) while at the same time following Christ's teachings of personal accountablity and accepting responsibility for actions. Just because you love someone as a fellow child of God does not mean that you have to just let them do awful things without trying to hold them responsible. The warped view of forgiveness held by a liberal says conservatives should just never hold anyone responsible for anything or they aren't "Christian". That's complete bull crap.
Does that help?


It helps to show how little attention conservatives pay to their own religion. So Christ was just kidding about "turn the other cheek"? You can hold someone accountable without killing them in cold blood. Yeah, a lot of the people on death row are evil fuckers. But they're confined. Killing them serves no purpose (other than to cost the state a fortune, where's your "small government" now?)

And you're being utterly disingenuous to pretend they're "cheering for justice". That is bullshit and you know it. They are cheering for vengence.

I don't get why conservatives are mostly Christian. Why is it that the "godless left" are more inclined to follow Jesus teachings (forgiveness, charity, etc) than his supposedly biggest fan club?

This statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of the principles of charity and forgiveness as Christ taught them. I do not say this with hostility. I really want to help you out here.

ISSUE ONE: "If you conservatives are so 'Christian' then why don't you do what he taught and help the poor/widows/whatever?"

Where neolibs make their blunder on this subject is in equating "giving money to government programs" with "charity". Christ taught people to personally help the poor & needy. He did not say, "Do it by giving your paycheck to the government."

When a conservative doesn't support a bloated, inefficient, ineffective, government program, it does NOT mean that they are not charitable and generous. However, the typical "godless liberal" (as you put it) thinks that conservatives are literally stealing money from poor people when they say they want to cut these programs. It is the exact opposite. Conservatives want to cut these bad programs so that ALL people everywhere keep more of their money. It is a conservative's firm belief that more people keeping more of their money will result in (A) fewer poor people and (B) more wealth that private citizens can use to help others via voluntary donation.

Conservatives help the poor and needy by volunteering thier own time and talents to help those in need - NOT by offloading that responsibliity into the hollow, empty, soulless 'substitute charity' of a government program. Studies have proven conservative individuals give more money and time to charitable causes compared to liberals. Without fanfare and without desire of reward, they help the needy through personal volunteerism. That is Christian behavior.

ISSUE TWO: "If you conservatives are so Christian then why do you want to kill people all the time?"

The mistake neolibs make here is that they think that forgiving someone also means that you do not try to hold them accountable for thier actions. Conservatives don't do that. They try to follow Christ's example of forgiving others (loving them as fellow children of God) while at the same time following Christ's teachings of personal accountablity and accepting responsibility for actions. Just because you love someone as a fellow child of God does not mean that you have to just let them do awful things without trying to hold them responsible. The warped view of forgiveness held by a liberal says conservatives should just never hold anyone responsible for anything or they aren't "Christian". That's complete bull crap.

Does that help?

On a final note - Bareboard above wrote about abortion. I'm paraphrasing, but essentially his point was that when liberals cheer abortions they are not cheering the killing of babies - they are celebrating freedom of choice. Likewise, it can be said that when conservatives cheer capital punishment they are not cheering the death of a person - they are cheering their support of JUSTICE. Accept or reject that as you will, but if a person only beleives the 'good' stuff about thier side and only the 'bad' stuff about people they don't like then that says a lot about them.

Modern interpretation of the "Turn the other cheek also" bit and the rest of the "sermon on the mount" ignore cultural context. There's tons of commentary about it if you Google it. Jesus was teaching passive resistance. Not that he necessarily existed at all.

Anyway, he goes on whith the old trope about aksing contrition allowing wrong-doers to do more wrong without consequence. The point of contrition is that if you have to openly, verbally acknowledge your sins, you become more aware of bad things you do, and are less likely to do them again. Raised Catholic myself, until I left the church, I avoided doing bad things because then I'd have to confess them. People who delight in others' suffering aren't the type to get all contrite about it. It's a strawman argument. He equates, "cleansing of unrighteousness" with forgiveness, though they're not the same thing. Unrighteousness is the defect that causes you to do bad things. If you sincerely believe you have been cleased of it, then you will have to choose to act against your god to reoffend. It's a pretty smart system. He also assumed that forgiveness also wipes away contrition. It doesn't. It just clears your heavenly ledger of sins that will be counted against you when you die.

And he really goes wrong with, "Love your neighbour as yourself." He's not commanding people to have loving feelings towards their neighbour or themselves. That's impossible to comply with. It's not love as a feeling, it's love as action. He's commanding people to treat everyone well rather than to harbour grudges and be a bitch, which only leads to escalation. If everyone treated everyone else decently, the world would be a much more comfortable place to live, and we'd all prosper more easily.

Further, it means if someone does something bad, and you show them love, it's more likely to change them in a good way. If you show them hate and contempt and "take pleasure in their suffering", it's just going to make them a worse person, and someone who has already shown a tendancy to do bad things is exactly the wrong person to make worse. You can love someone while protecting yourself. It's way, way out of the Western concept, but it's common in other places to punnish someone, even severely, with love.

The worst is the selective interpretation of "...as yourself." This means "Love your neighbour as well as yourself." It's an extention of your own love to you. When you love yourself, you'll treat yourself better, take care of yoruself more, show yourself more understanding. The result will be your having more love to share with others. I'm totally down with that.

So, you and I are talking about confirmation bias in another thread. Do you think that as an anti-religious person in general, you feel satisfaction when you are shown fault in religious teachings? Does it satisfy you to the point where you might not really analyse what's being said? Looks to me that's what's happened here. You were looking for someone to agree with you, and someone slamming Jesus' main teachings hit the sweet spot. I dislike religions too, and enjoy people like Hitch and Tyson, and to a lesser degree Dawkins doing their thing, but this is really weak soup.

>> ^hpqp:

Quote mine: fallacy of quoting out of context.
Care to illustrate how his citation of Bible verses is such?
As for recycling other people's arguments, that's pretty much what everyone does, some with more eloquence than others of course.
>> ^messenger:
He quotemines the bible and recycles others' arguments only to demonstrate that Jesus wasn't a very good god.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Most of what he is saying is pure hyperbole, but I'll address some of his points, though. First, Jesus willingly sacrificed Himself on the cross, it wasn't something He was forced to do. He wasn't a victum. It's what He wanted to do, out of love for His Father and for us. It was His sacrifice, and a noble one too;. He shed His innocent blood so that every human being had the way to eternal life. It absolutely does not take away personal responsibility...it's really quite the opposite; you are more responsible for your actions when you are saved. Anyone who is saved is held to a much higher standard of conduct, ie, perfection.

Chris is right, he couldn't forgive you, coiuldn't absolve you, not just because he is an imperfect human being, but because only God can forgive sins. A sin is breaking Gods law, and a human couldn't absolve you of that. Chris complained that he wasn't consulted about the cross it but Salvation is a free gift he is free to accept or reject. What Jesus did was not contingent upon human approval. It's up to him how to respond. It's similar to his noion of compulsary love. He said himself he would only be willing to make a real sacrifice for you only if you had been really nice to him, otherwise forget it. Clearly he doesn't believe everyone is worthy of that sacrifice, or that kind of love. Yet, that's the difference between Gods morality and chris's morality. Chris is a flawed human being whose basic interests are selfish, by his own admission. God is Holy, and He loves everyone, saved and sinner alike. Chris doesn't think you should love everyone, or that there are degrees of love based on what someone does for you, how nice they've been to you. God doesn't make that distinction..He loves someone even if they have done evil to Him. He teaches us to do this, to our spiritual perfection. Yet none of this is compulsary to Chris. He clearly has been free to hate God most of his life. Yet none of this will absolve him of his personal responsibility to obey Gods law. He wants to prove God is immoral, but really it is Chris who is immoral for disobeying God in the first place, and Christ who is attempting to circumvent his personal responsibility for his actions by attempting to put the burden of his guilt on God.

Woah!!!! This had me in stitches. Don't miss the surprise FX ending.
I'd love someone to *promote this "Action-Packed-eh-Moveee!!"

Tags for this video have been changed from 'dub fx, beatbox, looping, ben dowden' to 'dub fx, beatbox, looping, ben dowden, love someone' - edited by residue

>> ^bobknight33:

Loving someone enough to tell them that what they are doing is wrong is a good thing. Turning your head and letting wrong behavior continue doesn't help anyone.
Sadly the younger generation has been fed such a pack a moral lies that they don't know the difference between right and wrong.
For the most part what is morally right today was morally wrong 30 years ago. Has man obtained such wisdom in this short period of time to discount the wisdom of the past thousand years?
>> ^bareboards2:
What I find is that some Christians are quick to call it "evil" when more truly loving folk call it "compassion" and "acceptance of diversity."


There is no such thing as a behavior that is wrong. Wrongness is comes from morality. If a person doesn't share the same morality, then it can't be wrong to them. While you might make a universalistic claim that Christian morality is the true and only morality, but you can't prove it. And even in the bible itself, it says that the motivations of our heart our are the concern. To convince someone whom isn't a believer that cursing is wrong benefits him none. Youngness has nothing to do with wrongness. As King Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun. The world has always been corrupt and generally morally bankrupt. But to the point, we all fall short of even our own personal moral convictions; the theist and the atheist.

There are some things that were wrong that are now considered acceptable, and vice versa. Universal claims of a general depreciation of moral values seem trite, and lacks a full view of world events at large. Man has always been corrupt and corrupted even in our own lives. Heaping down judgment for judgments is not the point of Jesus...heaping down forgiveness for loves sake, however, is. Loving someone enough to forgive their actions is much greater than telling them they are wrong, IMO. Behavior is nothing, the soul is everything.

(Grammar edit )

>> ^bobknight33:

Loving someone enough to tell them that what they are doing is wrong is a good thing. Turning your head and letting wrong behavior continue doesn't help anyone.
Sadly the younger generation has been fed such a pack a moral lies that they don't know the difference between right and wrong.
For the most part what is morally right today was morally wrong 30 years ago. Has man obtained such wisdom in this short period of time to discount the wisdom of the past thousand years?
>> ^bareboards2:
What I find is that some Christians are quick to call it "evil" when more truly loving folk call it "compassion" and "acceptance of diversity."


"Believe me my boy, there is no grey. The world is either black or white!"

When you quote the bible, why do you call it the wisdom of the past thousand years? The bible was written around 300AD. And do you really think that a group of self-proclaimed holy-spirit-hearers 1700 years ago, or some group of clergymen more concerned with the exploitation of their flock than anything to do with love and compassion in 1100AD have the wisdom to judge how we ought to live our lives today?

A lot of the stuff that was considered morally upright 50 years ago is rightfully considered repugnant today.

The true wisdom doesn't lie in trying to find a framework of absolute, unchanging rules by which to live to the end of times. Rather it lies in recognizing that time changes things, and rules have to change with them and constantly be reassessed if they still apply.

The only two rules which I would consider fundamental in inter-personal relationships are:

• Don't treat people like objects (aka treat the other person as you yourself would like to be treated)


• My rights end where your rights begin and vice versa

And while we're at it - consider why the Old Testament is so pro fertility ("Go forth and multiply" or all the anti-homosexual rants). 3500 years ago small semitic tribes were being encouraged to grow rapidly to have a chance to survive in a hostile world where huge enemies where to the south (Egypt) and east (Babylonians/Sumerians) and whoever happened to live to the north at the time. All of whom regularly held their battles where the semitic tribes were living, and all of whom frequently raided the area for slaves. Rules devised for that kind of circumstances ought to no longer be regarded as dogma, in my opinion.

"The head is round so that your thoughts can change direction."
- Francis Picabia, 1922