All those are good, I just didn't like his Personal Jesus....I feel like maybe he was too old when he recorded it and I can hear the feebleness in his voice, almost struggling to keep up with the tune. Didn't work for me.
His cover of Hurt was genius.

Personal Jesus over Folsom Prison!? Over Riders in the Sky!? Over Boy Named Sue and John Henry's Hammer!?

You've surprised me.

Favorite songs:

Mercy Seat,
Solitary Man,
Hurt,
Hung My Heart,
Personal Jesus,
Don't Take Your Guns to Town,
Were You There

God is clearly not a static foundation on which humanity bases their morals. Any cursory examination of Christian history shows that interpretations of what a Godly foundation for a life advicates have varied wildly at least from era to era, if not person to person.

There has not only overriding agreement of right and wrong between Christians throughout the ages, but also between cultures regardless of religion. Every culture has basically the same laws; don't lie, don't cheat, don't kill, don't steal etc. This is pointing to the fact that God didn't just tell us what is moral and immoral in the bible, He wrote it on our hearts. However, you are right in that actions speak louder than words. If you want to look at Christian history, it's very plain that calling yourself a Christian doesn't make you a moral person. Jesus said you will know a tree by its fruits, and a lot of Christian fruit in history has been rotten. There has also been quite a bit of good fruit as well. However, you can't pin down whether God gave a moral law to the actions of sinful human beings when the bible actually predicts the massive apostasy and moral inconsistency that you are describing. Take a look at Matthew 24, for instance.

Is there a foundation for static morality without a God to give it to you? Of course there isn't. And again I'll ask where or when we were guaranteed any such thing.

Well, it seems you agree with Ravi after all. This is exactly his point, and mine. There is no foundation for morality (or meaning, etc) without God and therefore atheism is incoherent. Atheism leads to nihilism which is inconsistent with your own experience.

But lets say that we do deserve such certainty, it still begs the question of why this foundation for morality of yours seems to have a curiously diverse array of outcomes in terms of moral norms over the millennia.

It has a diverse array of outcomes because human nature is corrupt and we can only imperfectly follow Gods laws. It also has nothing to do with what we deserve, but what is true.

Oh wait, I forgot. Your take on this whole thing is actually the only correct one, because of a personal relevation from God - of course. I guess we can now ignore all those other people who felt they had the same thing, because they just weren't lucky enough to benefit from the secure foundation of morality you have found.

It's not my take, it's what Jesus taught us:

John 14:6

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

So your argument is with Jesus and not with me. You ask Him whether this is true or not.

And yes, spending 20 minutes detailing how Hitler and Stalin may have used certain limited aspects of atheistic thought processes to reach conclusions that are clearly not necessary outcomes of such premises, not by a long shot, and then using that to discredit an entire world view - is indeed Reducto ad Hitlerum in every possible sense of the term.

As TheGenk said, that's weak man.

Hitler is debatable but Stalins regime was atheistic at its core and that isn't debatable. Atheism wasn't peripheral to it, it was the foundation. Stalin brutally imposed atheism on the populace, and killed millions of Christians who refused to deny Christ. Don't take my word for it:

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

The history of Christianity in the Soviet Union was not limited to repression and secularization. Soviet policy toward religion was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, which made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and the elimination of religion.[1]

The state was committed to the destruction of religion,[2][3] and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic propaganda, and generally promoted 'scientific atheism' as the truth that society should accept.[4][5]

Religious beliefs and practices persisted among the majority of the population,[4] in the domestic and private spheres but also in the scattered public spaces allowed by a state that recognised its failure to eradicate religion and the political dangers of an unrelenting culture war.[2][6]

I can't believe people still have to be told you can't do this to another person. Jesus christ. Why don't they just step it up to lobotomy, with their "treatments for being violent" or whatever.

This is what he got for not taking off his coat. i.e. disobeying authority, or non-conformity.

Well met! I love religious intolerants!>> ^alien_concept:
Zach is my own personal Jesus, so I do need to point out that you have committed an act of blasphemy and I will be watching you very closely from now on.

>> ^messenger:

IMO not funny, and in my estimation, unoriginal, poorly acted, poorly executed.
I generally downvote for the same reasons as most (something doesn't deserve to be on the Sift), but also when there's a Top 15 sift that I think is particularly undeserving of that position.>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^messenger:
If ant's not downvoting, then I will.

Any particular reason, or?



Zach is my own personal Jesus, so I do need to point out that you have committed an act of blasphemy and I will be watching you very closely from now on.

Dude, you can have spiritual insights and be an atheist. But you're also doing what many other religious people do that gives religion a bad name - presume that spirituality is synonymous with morality. It's not the same thing. Most atheists have a code or morality.

I'm not getting into my personal religious beliefs with you. Quite frankly they are irrelevant.

For the record, you don't have definitive proof an omnipotent being revealed to you the absolute truth. You may believe you do, but you don't. Believe it all you want, strongly believe in it. That doesn't bother me, but you have no definitive proof for certain that God exists, let alone revealed to you the exact truth of his nature, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, it is very arrogant to think you have this knowledge. It's not arrogant of me to say that. You have no slam dunk evidence prove he has revealed this to you, or even if he exists. That's why it's called faith. I feel god has visited me in my lifetime to reveal truth, but I don't dare go around telling people that he most certainly did, and his truth is my beliefs, and therefore I know the truth and anyone who contradicts me is wrong. That's quite frankly repugnant and shows a total disrespect for others and their beliefs that haven't a thing to do with you.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You do not have a monopoly on spirituality or spiritual insight. You assume that your spirituality gives you the complete truth, and you jumped the shark to certainty of your beliefs. I don't have a problem with you believing you're correct. That's sorta why you came to that conclusion. It's the part where you're certain, and deny the mere possibility you could be wrong when debating others, and have the audacity to tell other people they have no spiritual insight.
Messenger is an atheist; by definition he knows nothing about the spirit. Further he explicitly denies that there is any such thing. Even if I wasn't certain about what I believe, what I said would still be factual.
Jesus said He is the way, the truth and the life. He had the audacity not just to say He is right, but that He is truth itself. I believe Him and agree. If I had doubts about who Jesus is, I wouldn't follow Him. A Christian makes an audacious decision; that Jesus is the living God.
That's garbage, and the exact point I was making to Messenger when he assumed your religion was controlling your mind. It's this kind of thing that gives some religious people and atheists who refuse to acknowledge there's a possibility of a god a bad name.
Do you believe there is a God?
It doesn't depend on the question. There's a ton of things loaded into the question. What are you defining as god? Who are you defining as Jesus? What does it mean to be the "Son of God"? Etc. etc. etc. There are different ways to answer those questions, and depending on those answers, it radically changes what the meaning is of a yes or no answer. The different ways you answer it can provide useful insights.
Of course it depends on the question. If I ask, was the Universe created, that has a right answer and a wrong answer. If I ask, what is the Universe, that has many answers. Words have meaning, and if we agree upon those meanings, we can come to a point of fact. If we define God as the Creator of the Universe, and Jesus as the historical person, Jesus of Nazereth, then there clearly is a yes or no answer.
Although it is promising that you believe in absolute truth, you are still trying to make it relative. You are saying there is a truth, but you are also implying that no one can know what it is. If someone did know what it is, would they be arrogant for being certain about it? No. You just seem to believe no one can be certain about it. There are two scenerios in which you could know the truth absolutely: 1. You are an omnipotent being. 2. An omnipotent being reveals the truth to you. I fall under scenerio 2.
And to be honest, these are questions often thrown out there that cause more problems than they help solve. First off, it doesn't necessarily matter if Jesus is truly the son of God or not. Believing it still can provide a useful belief framework to help people make themselves better. Choosing to believe in the principle of "matter can not be created nor destroyed" can provide insights into the world even though we know that's not entirely true.
Regardless, you and your religion are not the final arbiters of spiritual truth. Period. It's conceited to think you are.
It absolutely matters whether Jesus is God because what you believe about Jesus determines where you spend eternity. If Jesus is God, He is the final arbiter of spiritual truth, and it is on His authority as God that I speak that truth. You think it's wrong to be certain of truth, yet absolute truth is exclusive truth. It is simply unreasonable for you to place the limitation of your uncertainty about truth upon others. If God came to you and gave you absolute and undeniable revelation, would you be wishy-washy about whether you believe it or not? Can you admit to yourself that God, if He wanted to, could give absolute revelation of the truth to anyone? If you can admit that, and you know that I believe that He has given such revelation, then you shouldn't be surprised that I claim to know what it is with certainty. That is exactly what you would expect from someone who has encountered the living God.
>> ^heropsycho:

You do not have a monopoly on spirituality or spiritual insight. You assume that your spirituality gives you the complete truth, and you jumped the shark to certainty of your beliefs. I don't have a problem with you believing you're correct. That's sorta why you came to that conclusion. It's the part where you're certain, and deny the mere possibility you could be wrong when debating others, and have the audacity to tell other people they have no spiritual insight.

Messenger is an atheist; by definition he knows nothing about the spirit. Further he explicitly denies that there is any such thing. Even if I wasn't certain about what I believe, what I said would still be factual.

Jesus said He is the way, the truth and the life. He had the audacity not just to say He is right, but that He is truth itself. I believe Him and agree. If I had doubts about who Jesus is, I wouldn't follow Him. A Christian makes an audacious decision; that Jesus is the living God.

That's garbage, and the exact point I was making to Messenger when he assumed your religion was controlling your mind. It's this kind of thing that gives some religious people and atheists who refuse to acknowledge there's a possibility of a god a bad name.

Do you believe there is a God?

It doesn't depend on the question. There's a ton of things loaded into the question. What are you defining as god? Who are you defining as Jesus? What does it mean to be the "Son of God"? Etc. etc. etc. There are different ways to answer those questions, and depending on those answers, it radically changes what the meaning is of a yes or no answer. The different ways you answer it can provide useful insights.

Of course it depends on the question. If I ask, was the Universe created, that has a right answer and a wrong answer. If I ask, what is the Universe, that has many answers. Words have meaning, and if we agree upon those meanings, we can come to a point of fact. If we define God as the Creator of the Universe, and Jesus as the historical person, Jesus of Nazereth, then there clearly is a yes or no answer.

Although it is promising that you believe in absolute truth, you are still trying to make it relative. You are saying there is a truth, but you are also implying that no one can know what it is. If someone did know what it is, would they be arrogant for being certain about it? No. You just seem to believe no one can be certain about it. There are two scenerios in which you could know the truth absolutely: 1. You are an omnipotent being. 2. An omnipotent being reveals the truth to you. I fall under scenerio 2.

And to be honest, these are questions often thrown out there that cause more problems than they help solve. First off, it doesn't necessarily matter if Jesus is truly the son of God or not. Believing it still can provide a useful belief framework to help people make themselves better. Choosing to believe in the principle of "matter can not be created nor destroyed" can provide insights into the world even though we know that's not entirely true.

Regardless, you and your religion are not the final arbiters of spiritual truth. Period. It's conceited to think you are.

It absolutely matters whether Jesus is God because what you believe about Jesus determines where you spend eternity. If Jesus is God, He is the final arbiter of spiritual truth, and it is on His authority as God that I speak that truth. You think it's wrong to be certain of truth, yet absolute truth is exclusive truth. It is simply unreasonable for you to place the limitation of your uncertainty about truth upon others. If God came to you and gave you absolute and undeniable revelation, would you be wishy-washy about whether you believe it or not? Can you admit to yourself that God, if He wanted to, could give absolute revelation of the truth to anyone? If you can admit that, and you know that I believe that He has given such revelation, then you shouldn't be surprised that I claim to know what it is with certainty. That is exactly what you would expect from someone who has encountered the living God.

>> ^heropsycho:

That's odd..it works fine for me.

>> ^hpqp:

dead? I get some Yahoo "the clip is unavailable" shtick.

Again, they're not the same person. Jesus wasn't praying to Himself, He was praying to His Father. When He became human, He took on our nature and weaknesses..it was necessarily for Him to pray for the same reasons it is necessary for us to pray. Your view point is not only not trinitarian, because you're saying there is no difference between Jesus and the Father, it is just completely ignorant of basic theology.

>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You said "Why would an omnipotent and omniscient being pray to itself and not grant itself the thing wished for
Jesus wasn't praying to Himself, He was praying to the Father..they're different people. Therefore, your view is not trinitarian.
My viewpoint is that Jesus was and is fully God, which is the trinitarian view. That He took on the nature of man for our sake does not diminish His divine nature, which is affirmed in the nicean creed. It would be helpful in this discussion if you actually knew what you were talking about. Here is a resource:
http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/chphnwr.htm
http://www.gci.org/Jesus/dualnature
>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What Der said pretty much 100 percent of Christians would call flawed..what I said, not so much..most Christians believe in the trinity. I had personal revelation the trinity is truth before I ever became a Christian.
>> ^schlub:
I love how all xtians have their own interpretation of their religion and they insist that their interpretation is the correct one. There are many other xtians who would call your "understanding" flawed, shinyblurry...
>> ^shinyblurry:
Jesus had a dual nature, he was both man and God. He was made a little lower than the angels for our sake, and He put aside all that was His due to suffer for us..Your understanding here is just hopelessly flawed..it's a cute little atheist meme but it has no theological basis. Jesus and the Father are not the same person..they are one in the essential nature of being God, but they are different people.



Well aaaactually your viewpoint would be Nontrinitarian by definition. So according to this, my view of Trinity is correct:
According to this doctrine, God exists as three persons but is one God, meaning that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have exactly the same nature or being as God the Father in every way.[4] Whatever attributes and power God the Father has, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have as well.[4] "Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient."


Why would an omniscient and omnipotent being need to pray? "Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient." ... which is still trinitarian. Just not your personal definition of it.

"I want mystery... I want salvation... your one personal Jesus..."

He wanted Katy Perry?

It sounds like a spaghetti western version of Personal Jesus by Depeche Mode.

*promote your personal Jesus

My life according to: Depeche Mode

Are you a male or female? It Doesn't Matter

Describe yourself: Somebody

How do you feel? Perfect

Describe where you currently live: In Your Room

If you could go anywhere, where would you go?: Miles Away

Your favorite form of transportation: Spacewalker

Your best friend is: Personal Jesus

You and your best friends are: Damaged People

What's the weather like? Wrong

Favorite time of day: The Dead of Night

If your life was a TV show, what would it be called?: Enjoy the Silence

What is life to you: Precious

Your current relationship: Big Muff

Your fear: The Sinner In Me

What is the best advice you have to give? Suffer Well

Thought for the Day: People are People

How I would like to die: Walking In My Shoes

My soul's present condition: A Pain That I'm Used To

My motto: Dream On