*promote even though promoting is kind of a waste of points....

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, May 21st, 2013 6:20pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter bareboards2.

Takes balls in the South

whatever....

I wanted to post this myself, but my que is full. What I found odd was Wolf's question of "do you thank the Lord"... Why ask such a question in the first place?

Where does morality come from? Good over evil. Must be some reason for it.

are they in front of a green screen?

Because he knew what she would say already is my guess.

What activity is not a waste of points?

Our awareness of it comes from our God given conscience, which is intrinsic and universal to all humans and cultures. Even psychopaths do know right from wrong. The existence of an absolute moral law points to an absolute moral law Giver.

That there is a moral choice to make points to a Creator @bareboards..

She made the right choice not to sin..and I think it is Gods way of letting her friends and family know they need to pray for her..along with the thousands of people who watched the broadcast.

Gifting.

Which absolute moral law would that be?

Would it be the one that condemns rape victims to death, or to marry their rapist (Deuteronomy 22:23-29)?

Or maybe it's the one that says you must stone disobedient children to death (Deuteronomy 21:18)?

Possibly you are referring to the correct method for beating your slaves (Exodus 21:20) ?

How prisoners of war should be put to death (Deuteronomy 20:13) ?
Sorry, my bad, that's only male prisoners. You get to forcibly marry the women, unless they don't please you (at which point you can toss them out on their ear) Deuteronomy 21:11

I do so love being lectured on morals by the likes of you.

Then they must gift also in order not to waste?

Would it be the one that condemns rape victims to death, or to marry their rapist (Deuteronomy 22:23-29)?

Exodus 22:17

If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, she shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.

The father is the one who makes the decision and he was under no obligation to allow his daughter to be married to a rapist. The punishment was on the rapists side, that he would have to pay the bride price, and if the family agreed, to stay permanently married to the girl.

Or maybe it's the one that says you must stone disobedient children to death (Deuteronomy 21:18)?

"This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard"

It is not just a disobedient child, but a rebellious and morally depraved child. Yes, it is a harsh punishment, but God made the punishment harsh because Israel had a covenant with Him to be holy and they were to bring forth the Messiah.

Possibly you are referring to the correct method for beating your slaves (Exodus 21:20) ?

Exodus 21:20 details the punishment for beating a slave to death. The purpose of the law was to protect slaves.

How prisoners of war should be put to death (Deuteronomy 20:13) ?
Sorry, my bad, that's only male prisoners. You get to forcibly marry the women, unless they don't please you (at which point you can toss them out on their ear) Deuteronomy 21:11

Deuteronomy 21:11 wasn't commanded by God; it was an addition by Moses:

Mar 10:5 And Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'
Mar 10:7 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,
Mar 10:8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh.
Mar 10:9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

I do so love being lectured on morals by the likes of you.

Most of the objections here have either been misinterpreted, or misapplied, and none of them are valid today. The civil and ceremonial laws given to Israel, and Israel only, were done away with when Jesus died on the cross. The total absence of any objection to what Jesus taught us about morality is what speaks volumes in the arguments you present, because there is nothing to be said about it except to praise it. If everyone followed the teachings of Jesus something like a utopia would dawn. If you want to understand the morality that comes from God, read what Jesus taught about it instead of playing the gotchya game with the Old Testament trying to find an excuse to ignore what Jesus said.

*religion

Adding video to channels (Religion) - requested by Norsuelefantti.

Shinblury you are an intellectually poisoned individual. Its a shame modern medicine has no answer for this.

Did you thank the Lord for not killing you while he flattened your neighbourhood and killed a bunch of others, including kids?

"The south" is a pretty big place with many different attitudes. I've known a lot of people in Tennessee that were open about their atheism. Hell, I had a bad religion sticker on my car when I lived there. Yes there are areas where you have to be careful (same for if you are black, homosexual, etc.) but I doubt a place as populated as Oklahoma City would be that bad.

Matthew 5:17

Reason > Dogma.

There is only one Moral imperative observable in nature. "Nothing is true and everything is permitted"

"Nothing is true..." :

All concepts of truth are relative and dependant upon a supporting paradigm(s) to facilitate meaning and context. To say "killing is wrong" would only be meaningful within a structure that defines both A. the intended meaning of the terms used (i.e. linguistic convention) and B. the causal relationships and imperatives of the ethical code/structure under which one is operating
(e.g. Christians might say "because God will get you", or Deontologists might say "because the act is always more important than the consequence, or Consequentialists that say the opposite of the Deontologists etc.)
Either way "Truth" is just a meaningless noise leaving ones mouth unless there is at least some intellectual structure in which to define it. Ascribing "truth" to "God" is just another such intellectual structure.

"......everything is permitted":

Given all moral/ethical imperatives are by their very nature intellectual constructs and that none (as we define them) appear irrefutably to occur in nature we must conclude that the only "moral judge/authority" that provably exists in the cosmos must be our own minds (you can't even prove 100% that other minds necessarily exist). The only acts prohibited by nature are those defined by its physical laws, one cannot commit a physical action that does not have an equal and opposite reaction for instance. Thus "everything is permitted".
However as the fact that ones own mind is and can be the only moral authority it is also implicit in this "truth" (see what I did there?) that one should endeavour to not be found wanting in the eyes of this ethical arbiter. After all your own conscience is the one person you can never avoid! Thus "everything is permitted" when "truly" understood (again lol) does not encourage one to "do what you want" but rather to consider your every action with the utmost care. No one knows your true motivations & desires better than your own sub-conscious and no one could ever punish you as hard for your mistakes.

Hardened violent criminals who repent their crimes rarely do so because prison is an unpleasant environment (they are often hardened men, accustomed to physical hardship). They repent because the enforced solitude forces them to confront themselves!

Thus I assert; moral behaviour is a product of wisdom and self awareness only! Anything else is brainwashing and (often dangerous) delusion as it deprives one of the true (and complicated) reasons for why some choices/beliefs would be mistakes. (e.g. the sexual repression of Christian culture that still remains firmly in place amongst many (most) atheists).

Love is the law, Love under will.
And do what thau wilt shall be the whole of the law.

If only our feeble experiments in psychology actually got us much closer to an answer. Unfortunately, psychology is a bit of a quasi-science where the scientific method doesn't apply (but yet it should - they just conveniently forget about it all too often).

Funnily enough Islamic people thank their lord for all that happens, good or bad (I'm not Muslim).

Btw, when you write "the Lord" you should be specific, there is more than one religion. The presenter should have been specific too. Or maybe just not made an assumption...

@shinyblurry-I know some Christians who can't stand to hear profanity of any kind, but say "dern" "gosh dern" "hell" etc., all variations of the vernacular....I would hope that God might have a sense of humor about such monkey behavior, after all, he's the one who spit in the mud and spun us on pottery wheels....


You atheists are about as easy to tolerate as the hard-core born-again, BTW-Yer all religious fanatics t'me!!

WTF does her 'morality' have to do with 'outing' herself? Who said she outed herself in the first place?

@Chairman_woo

Crowley certainly had his "shit" together, eh??

"In the absence of willpower the most complete collection of virtues and talents is wholly worthless."

.....aaaaaaaannnnd then he sunk into depths of depravity and self-abuse hitherto unseen in the 20th century

There, there schlub-Let the God-bashers have their entitlement-

Why does Wolf Blitzer suck so much?

If Minnesota legalized gay marriage, why did God punish Oklahoma?

Because god hates musicals and he especially hates getting, "Oh What A Beautiful Morning" stuck in his head when he's having a bad day.

Since 99.9% of "Christians" use the old testament to validate their hatred and distain for others, it's totally reasonable to use it to shame and deride them. Those who call themselves "christian" are far less likely to follow the teachings of Jebus, and more likely to use religion to play their gottcha game and excuse the inexcusable.
As an atheist, I have repeatedly and consistently been told I'm a better christian than any actual christian the religious speakers know. How sad is that? It kind of blows the "morality comes from religion" or "god" argument out of the water.

I think the point they tried to make was she was acting morally by not lying about her (lack of) faith. That does seem to negate their other argument, that morality only comes from a relationship with Jebus.
I agree, being atheist is not akin to being gay (or should not be considered as such), and so there is no "outing". The implication is that the default position is Christian and to be an honest person you must "out" yourself if you are not in that group. Asinine.
(to be fair, gays probably feel the same about "outing", that it unfairly effectively separates them from the whole of society).

poor shiny, still taking the remedial classes I see

And oddly, I find I can tolerate @shinyblurry better than you. At least he's honest about his brand of sanctimonious nonsense.

I have a lot of relatives in Oklahoma and am well versed in how steeped they are in their religion. I am very careful about the way I talk there -- I"m not an atheist, but am pretty dang close to one.

I don't ever say it though. Too afraid of negative consequences on my relationships with family members.

@Lann understood my point, and called me out on my own ignorance of the true diversity in Southern communities. Plenty of atheists there. I always presumed them to be silent atheists -- and here this woman claims it for herself on national TV. Because she is a moral person, and wasn't going to lie.

So @newtboy, you got it right about my original motive, in general. However, you conflated me with shinyblurry.

I never said that morality comes from Jesus. I meant the exact opposite. My point is you don't need religion or Jesus or any god to be a moral person. I'm sick to death of some religious folks claiming only Jesus lovers can be moral.

For me, this short vid is proof of morality outside of religion -- she could have taken the easy way, and just politely nodded. But she didn't -- she didn't want to LIE. That is a moral choice, to me.

And good on her. Glad to know from Lann that there probably won't be any negative consequences to public act.

Do some homework ;-).

Your religion (Christianity) is a bastardization of "Messianic Judaism" (the crazy old testament stuff) and Mithraism (a "Gnostic" religion which was highly (& most) prevalent among the roman legions around the time of the reformation).

Virtually everything positive you allude to in the Christian teachings originally come from Hermeticism and other such ancient "Gnostic" traditions.

Jesus (that is to say "Yeshua ben Yosef") as portrayed as a mortal man is a fabrication at best (and outright fraud at worst).

The "Christ" however has been around for a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooongass time before the name "Jesus" ever hit the scene . This stuff goes back to the Greeks, Egyptians, Babylonians, Cannanites etc.

And that not even mentioning The Buddha, Zoroaster, Lao Tzu etc. etc. all of whom predate your Jesus by quite some centuries and preach many of the same fundamentals.

Ditch the Dogma and try out the approach of some other religions, you'll quickly find that underneath all the silly myths there's certain things they all have in common (to a greater and lesser extent). You'll also I hope quickly start to realise that the three major "Exoteric religions" (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) are by this stage corrupted to the point of being barely serviceable and a mere shadow of their "Esoteric" counterparts.

Then again you could always just pull the faith card on me

Love is the law...

I did not intend to imply that you had made the argument that morals only come directly from Jebus, only that that is an argument heard all too often from the Jebus crowd. I was attempting to explain how many people (myopically) see morality.
I guess that missed your question slightly, she was moral to "out" herself because it kept her from lying, an implicit immoral act. As to who said she did it, the title.

Ironically, this is verse that proves what I am trying to explain to you:

Matthew 5:17

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Do you notice that Jesus said He came to "fulfill" the law? Here is the dictionary definition:

ful·fill

Bring to completion or reality; achieve or realize (something desired, promised, or predicted).

He brought the law to completion on the cross:

John 19:30 When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, "It is finished," and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

The theology behind this is a little deep but I'll be happy to discuss it with you if you're interested in understanding it.

Nothing is true

Except that?

All concepts of truth are relative

Is that absolutely true?

Everything is permitted

Including not permitting..which means you have no further argument against Christianity.

Do some homework ;-).

I have. According to what you've written, you haven't.

Your religion (Christianity) is a bastardization of "Messianic Judaism" (the crazy old testament stuff) and Mithraism (a "Gnostic" religion which was highly (& most) prevalent among the roman legions around the time of the reformation).

The earliest records of Mithraism bear no similarity to Christianity at all. It is a pagan religion in every respect. The only records you find that bear similarity to Christianity are after the 2nd century, after Christian texts had been circulating for at least a hundred years. It's Mithraism which integrated Christianity not the other way around.

Virtually everything positive you allude to in the Christian teachings originally come from Hermeticism and other such ancient "Gnostic" traditions.

Actually, they came from a progressive revelation of Judiasm which preceeded all of that. What Jesus did not teach that came from Judiasm was wholly His and entirely unique, and they came from the mouth of God Himself. The difference is Jesus Himself. You could take buddha out of buddhism, or zoroaster out of zoroastrianism and you would still have something. Without Jesus there is no Christianity.

Jesus (that is to say "Yeshua ben Yosef") as portrayed as a mortal man is a fabrication at best (and outright fraud at worst).

The Jesus myth theory isn't taken seriously by even skeptical bible scholars. There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than for Alexander the Great.

etc

The hope for the Messiah is universal in human beings; that is revelation that God gives to every man, which is what it says in Romans 1:18-21. Whether there are messianic expectations in other religions is irrelevent. Buddha, Zoroaster, Lao Tzu are dead. Jesus is alive.

What is it about gleeful diffusion interjected in particular that ruffles you? Playful banter when you have a room fulla straight men on subjects most are unqualified to argue, well, it's fair game and all-Often a hearty remedy for absolutism of any kind is a valve tweaked a few degrees right or left-Absolution comes later

Ephesians 5:4

Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather giving of thanks.

Philippians 4:8

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

2 Peter 3:9

The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

100 percent of people fall short of the glory of God daily. God has given everyone a conscience to know right from wrong. You don't need to know Jesus to be moral, but you do need to know Jesus to be forgiven for your sins.

Luke 6:31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

Luke 6:32 "If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.

Luke 6:33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.

Luke 6:34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount.

Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.

The bible doesn't teach that unbelievers can't be moral..and if some Christians say that, they haven't read or understood the scripture. It's a strawman argument.

Why in the hell did I read all of that crap? Shiny, I hope what you do in your life is helping people, because you're sure not helping anyone here.

@shinyblurry, just so you know.... I have you on "ignore".

It's too much, shiny. Too many words, too many posts, too much repetition of same old, same old.

Too much of this, and very very little of YOU. The person. The human.

You don't show up as a human being. So I am exercising my right to exit the "relationship."

I see that you responded to a post I made. Haven't a clue what you said. I suspect it was a big long repetitive lecture in my direction. But if somewhere in there, you asked me a question?

You'll never get an answer.

I love you anyway and I pray that the Lord will bless you and your family.

@ shinyblurry

This had already turned into an essay and I didn't want to take up even more room by quoting you verbatim so I've tried to break it down to save space.



1. "Except that?"

There are no absolute logical principles <---- including that one.
This is simply another way of describing the problem of induction and under determination. Like so many philosophical arguments you have attacked my position based upon the language it was described in and not due to its underlying thought process. This has resulted in a fallacy. Language merely conveys knowledge, it does not in an of itself contain it (and excellent example incidentally of what I was talking about).

2. "Is that absolutely true?"

All principles (save the observation "thinking exists") can only ever derived by induction. This is the case because one can never know for certain if any or all of ones experiences are fabrications, and furthermore that they never encompass all possible variables/possibilities. To put it another way, you can't ever be certain about any judgement one makes about the universe or anything in it because one cannot observe an exhaustive perspective (i.e. all of time and space for the thing in question). Thus there may always exist an example that could falsify your assumption. e.g. if I inducted that all swans are white because I had only ever seen white swans I would ultimately be incorrect as black swans can be observed to exist. Unless you can verify the entirety of existence across time there might always exist and experience/example to falsify any objective assertion. (you could be a brain in a jar, you can't prove 100% that your not)


3. "Including not permitting..which means you have no further argument against Christianity."

^ Pardon me? Did you even read what I wrote by way of explanation for that? What part of "everything is permitted" even remotely precludes me (or anyone) from anything, let alone arguing against Christianity?!?!?

What I felt I'd explained fairly clearly was the idea that the only demonstrable moral authority was yourself, or to put it another way that there are no moral authorities to be found anywhere else but within peoples minds.
Even if God himself speaks to you directly, that is an experience reducible only to the mind because ALL EXPERIENCES WITHIN HUMAN CONCEPTION OCCUR IN or at best VIA THE MIND!

Nothing has ever happened to any human being anywhere that was not experienced entirely in the mind (notice I didn't say "brain" ). When you see a chair you don't see the photons of light hitting your retina, you see something your mind made up to be representative (at best) of whatever phenomenon your eyes detected.

With that in mind (<- mind lol), "everything is permitted". The universe will continue on, unmoved by our moralities (or lack of). Only other humans will cry or rejoice at your actions and only within the sovereignty of your own mind will you find an irrefutable and absolute moral judge...

As for the other bits

A. "The earliest records of Mithraism bear no similarity to Christianity at all....."

Apart from all the same major dates for festivals and holy days (25th dec etc.), the entire symbology of dieing on a cross for three days then being resurrected, the "last supper" with 12 disciples, 3 wise men from the east bearing gifts. etc. etc.

I'd have more time for the Christian counter argument that the Mithraists stole this stuff from them if the same themes, dates and symoblogy didn't pop up in ancient cultures going back a few 1000 years over and over and over. The list of Messianic figures with the above characteristics in western folklore & myth is so long its almost a joke! & naturally is no co-incidence as they are describing the movement of the heavens (specifically the sun) by way of allegory. Speaking of which............

Pagan & Gnostic traditions are deeply intertwined to the point where one could consider many examples to be one and the same. Mithraism would be one such example. Pagan just means many Gods/worship of nature & archetypes in the human psyche. Mithraism fulfils this definition but it also fulfils the Gnostic one i.e. it teaches that one finds god of and within oneself, not as an external force, or indeed a force which is separate from oneself.

But then the Catholic Church did it level best to suppress and destroy any trace of Gnosticism through the ages so its no surprise to me that you're not entirely familiar with it. (most people haven't even heard of it and those that do tend to be under the misapprehension that its a Christian thing (again understandable under the circumstances))


B. "Actually, they came from a progressive revelation of Judiasm which preceeded all of that."

I'll come with you a little on that one. Before Rex Mundi (Jehova) showed up to fk everything up for them the Kabbalistic (and essentially Pagan) Jews possessed great wisdom and insight. Naturally not all of this was lost! (though after Solomon passed it would appear a regrettably large amount was)


C. "What Jesus did not teach that came from Judiasm was wholly His and entirely unique, and they came from the mouth of God Himself."


I'm not sure I even want to grace that with a response. How could you possibly know what came from the mouth of God to a man 2000 years ago? If you say "because it says in the bible" please don't expect a sensible reply (I'm happy to fight non-sense with none-sense)


D. "The difference is Jesus Himself. You could take buddha out of buddhism, or zoroaster out of zoroastrianism and you would still have something. Without Jesus there is no Christianity."

^This one amused be greatly. I would say Buddhism & Zoroastranism were clearly superior for exactly that reason but that's not what I think you were alluding to? I assume you were suggesting that certain parts of the whole Jesus shebang could only have come from Jesus/God/Holy spirit because he made himself the centre of attention?
This is why I make a very distinct separation between the "Jesus" and the "Christ". Christ (or anointed one) goes back at least to Egypt. Horus is clearly "Christ" by basically any sensible measure I can think of, and by "Christ" I mean the "Sun of God" i.e. the freaking Sun.
This also forms the basis for an "as above so below" parable/allegory for the spiritual journey to enlightenment. You can find your way to heaven and God via the "Sun of God's" wisdom. No Miracle performing hippie Jew's were required before and I fail to see how sprouting the same fundamental idea just with a figurehead for a disenfranchised Jewish noble family anchored to everything helps?

Are there some pearl's of Jesus's wisdom I missed? Thus far I have yet to come across anything that didn't strike me as either a rewording of things wise men had preached for 1000's of years previously, or a power play by an unscrupulous or deluded individual.


E. "The Jesus myth theory isn't taken seriously by even skeptical bible scholars. There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than for Alexander the Great."

I happen to know its hotly contested even to this day but lets for the sake of this just take it as a given. When I said "at best a fabrication" it was because I consider the historical figure to be an impostor and a fraud. If anyone was a "true" messiah then John the Baptist and moreover Simon Magus are far better contenders but then that's a colossal can of worms I'm not sure I can be bothered to open at the moment. I'll just say in summary that I am of the opinion that Mr. Ben Yosef and his crew were plotting to return the house of David to power but largely failed in the end as the Roman establishment usurped most of the legacy they tried to create (though not entirely).
Either way they worshiped and championed a being (Psychological archetype) which I feel I have little choice but to call Satan i.e. the God of Abraham. This alone is a pretty major indictment for me and any historic figure that puts said "being" at the center of their belief system will garner my suspicion.

How can the God that appeared to Abraham be anything but malevolent if the accounts in the Torah and Quran are accurate?

(I hope that made sense towards the end, getting very late & tired here...)

Hello, Brick Wall. I would like to argue with you.

I do rather love the mad baldy oversexed bastard!

I figure if I haven't cracked this whole "apotheosis" thing by the time I'm too old to do anything about it anymore then drugs & hookers is probably the best way to go too.

Evolution favors morality in a species that thrives by cooperating.

That's where it comes from.

Now shhhh, I'm watching Wolf milk misery for ratings.

Ok, so which is it?

Do we have to abide by the old testament or not?
Because either Jesus evolved the law into something more moderate, or he was the embodiment of the earlier law.
It's one or the other.

If it's as you suggest, then Christians need to shut the fuck up about homosexuality and all the other bits of the old testament that they selectively cling to in order to back up their own prejudices.

Or.... Jesus was actually not the super nice guy he's made out to be.

Meh, either way he continues to be utterly irrelevant.

@shinyblurry
i got all excited seeing you state that arguing over old testament was irrelevant due to jesus being the new covenant.
i really though there had been some progress and then what do you go and do?
contradict yourself by using old testament to make a point,which you had just previously said was no longer relevant.

goddammit...........


@Chairman_woo do as thou whilt,may it harm none.
now where have i heard that before?
has a ring to it.

I've ignoring him since before it was cool...

If you had been reading more closely, you might have noticed that I never said the OT was irrelevant; I said that the moral and ceremonial laws given to Israel were done away with. It is still the word of God and much of it concerns prophecy which confirms Jesus as the Messiah and prophecy about the last days.

What you consider to be progress is to discard Gods laws and believe that you can enlighten yourself up to His level. This is exactly what caused humanity to fall in the first place; it's the same lie that human beings have been chasing since the beginning of time. What spiritual progressives/relativists cannot understand is that you can't build a ladder up to Heaven. You can't get anywhere near a holy God on your own. That holy God, in the person of Jesus Christ, had to bring a ladder down to Earth for us. And to get on that ladder you have to pay a very heavy price; you have to die. When you get on that ladder you don't get to do whatever you want anymore. You have to be holy as He is holy, and that's exactly what all of these seekers of the esoteric and "secret knowledge" don't want to do. That's all this relativity amounts to; justifying rebellion against God so you can do whatever you want. Or as aleister crowley summed it up "do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". That is from Satans lips to your ears.

Do we have to abide by the old testament or not?

We are not under law, but grace. What we follow is the law of Christ. He reiterated many of the moral laws such as the 10 commandments but as far as the civil and ceremonial laws of Israel, those were done away with at the cross.

Because either Jesus evolved the law into something more moderate, or he was the embodiment of the earlier law.
It's one or the other.

The revelation of God is progressive. The Old Covenant was for the Jews only, whereas the New Covenant is for the whole world. The law of Moses was based on the light of revelation the Jews had about God at the time, and Jesus brought a greater revelation of God and thus a fuller picture of the law and its purpose. The law was initially given because Israel refused to enter into the original covenant God had planned for them, which was very similiar to the covenant Jesus made with the whole Earth. Jesus was essentially restoring what should been instituted from the very beginning.

If it's as you suggest, then Christians need to shut the fuck up about homosexuality and all the other bits of the old testament that they selectively cling to in order to back up their own prejudices.

Or.... Jesus was actually not the super nice guy he's made out to be.

Homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament as well as the Old. There is no need to refer to the OT to show that homosexuality is a sin. There is really no reason to refer to the OT for any particular law we should follow because it is all covered in the NT. In any case, Christians should love homosexuals just as they should love every other person. If they are prejudiced towards any person for any reason they are sinning just as equally as the one they are condemning. That is what Jesus taught us to do, which is to love even our enemies.

Meh, either way he continues to be utterly irrelevant.

http://www.amazon.com/Book-that-Made-Your-World/dp/1595555455/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369294429&sr=8-1&keywords=the+book+that+made+your+world

A very large part of the comfortable western civilization we live in and the freedoms we enjoy came directly from what Jesus taught and did. No one, regardless of what you think about who He is, has ever impacted the world in a more positive or powerful way than He did. To say He is irrelevant is to be in the dark about a large part of the history of the world we live in, and how that history shapes it today.

And if you don't believe there is any law, is that going to stop the police for arresting you for breaking it?

There are no absolute logical principles <---- including that one. This is simply another way of describing the problem of induction and under determination. Like so many philosophical arguments you have attacked my position based upon the language it was described in and not due to its underlying thought process. This has resulted in a fallacy. Language merely conveys knowledge, it does not in an of itself contain it (and excellent example incidentally of what I was talking about).

Your argument eats itself. If there aren't any absolute laws of logic (including that one), then there are no rules period, and thus no logic. If there is no such thing as logic then I could say "The cucumber faints west in the umbrage" and it would be an entirely valid response to anything you say. Yet you continue to make absolute statements like:

"All principles (save the observation "thinking exists") can only ever derived by induction."

"This is the case because one can never know for certain if any or all of ones experiences are fabrications"

"you can't ever be certain about any judgement one makes about the universe or anything in it because one cannot observe an exhaustive perspective"

The sea cucumber faints west in the umbrage, my friend.

All principles (save the observation "thinking exists") can only ever derived by induction. This is the case because one can never know for certain if any or all of ones experiences are fabrications, and furthermore that they never encompass all possible variables/possibilities. To put it another way, you can't ever be certain about any judgement one makes about the universe or anything in it because one cannot observe an exhaustive perspective (i.e. all of time and space for the thing in question). Thus there may always exist an example that could falsify your assumption. e.g. if I inducted that all swans are white because I had only ever seen white swans I would ultimately be incorrect as black swans can be observed to exist. Unless you can verify the entirety of existence across time there might always exist and experience/example to falsify any objective assertion. (you could be a brain in a jar, you can't prove 100% that your not)

No, I can't 100 percent prove I am not actually a circus peanut dreaming I'm a man, but it doesn't matter what I can prove to you. What matters is what is true. You have absolute freedom to live in total denial of reality if you want to, but reality isn't what we dictate it is. Just because you have no way of figuring it out doesn't mean no one does. The one who does have it figured out is God, because He created it. Because He is God He can make us absolutely certain of who He is and what He wants from us, transcending all physical or mental rationale.

^ Pardon me? Did you even read what I wrote by way of explanation for that? What part of "everything is permitted" even remotely precludes me (or anyone) from anything, let alone arguing against Christianity?!?!?

If everything is permitted then it is equally valid not to permit, which means you have no argument. Your way isn't better than any other way according to your logic so all that you can argue is that you prefer it.

What I felt I'd explained fairly clearly was the idea that the only demonstrable moral authority was yourself, or to put it another way that there are no moral authorities to be found anywhere else but within peoples minds.
Even if God himself speaks to you directly, that is an experience reducible only to the mind because ALL EXPERIENCES WITHIN HUMAN CONCEPTION OCCUR IN or at best VIA THE MIND!

I can't prove God exists to you, but He can. God isn't hiding from you; He has been knocking on your door your entire life. It's your choice whether you want to open the door, but you are going to meet Him one day regardless of what you choose.

Nothing has ever happened to any human being anywhere that was not experienced entirely in the mind (notice I didn't say "brain" ). When you see a chair you don't see the photons of light hitting your retina, you see something your mind made up to be representative (at best) of whatever phenomenon your eyes detected.

With that in mind (<- mind lol), "everything is permitted". The universe will continue on, unmoved by our moralities (or lack of). Only other humans will cry or rejoice at your actions and only within the sovereignty of your own mind will you find an irrefutable and absolute moral judge...

I was created before I had a mind. The Universe has a beginning, it was created, and the Creator is the judge.

Apart from all the same major dates for festivals and holy days (25th dec etc.),

The Catholics borrowed those from the Pagans..you won't find those in the bible.

the entire symbology of dieing on a cross for three days then being resurrected, the "last supper" with 12 disciples, 3 wise men from the east bearing gifts. etc. etc.

Sources?

I'd have more time for the Christian counter argument that the Mithraists stole this stuff from them if the same themes, dates and symoblogy didn't pop up in ancient cultures going back a few 1000 years over and over and over. The list of Messianic figures with the above characteristics in western folklore & myth is so long its almost a joke! & naturally is no co-incidence as they are describing the movement of the heavens (specifically the sun) by way of allegory. Speaking of which..

Let's see some sources..

But then the Catholic Church did it level best to suppress and destroy any trace of Gnosticism through the ages so its no surprise to me that you're not entirely familiar with it. (most people haven't even heard of it and those that do tend to be under the misapprehension that its a Christian thing (again understandable under the circumstances))

I know exactly what it is and I am very familar with it.

I'll come with you a little on that one. Before Rex Mundi (Jehova) showed up to fk everything up for them the Kabbalistic (and essentially Pagan) Jews possessed great wisdom and insight. Naturally not all of this was lost! (though after Solomon passed it would appear a regrettably large amount was)

Abraham is the father of the Jewish people and he worshiped the LORD.

I'm not sure I even want to grace that with a response. How could you possibly know what came from the mouth of God to a man 2000 years ago? If you say "because it says in the bible" please don't expect a sensible reply (I'm happy to fight non-sense with none-sense)

Because I know Him personally and His Spirit lives within me.

^This one amused be greatly. I would say Buddhism & Zoroastranism were clearly superior for exactly that reason but that's not what I think you were alluding to? I assume you were suggesting that certain parts of the whole Jesus shebang could only have come from Jesus/God/Holy spirit because he made himself the centre of attention?

To be a Christian is to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Therefore there is no Christianity without Him. He is the only way to know God:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

He wasn't pointing to Himself, He was pointing to God.

This is why I make a very distinct separation between the "Jesus" and the "Christ". Christ (or anointed one) goes back at least to Egypt. Horus is clearly "Christ" by basically any sensible measure I can think of, and by "Christ" I mean the "Sun of God" i.e. the freaking Sun.

This also forms the basis for an "as above so below" parable/allegory for the spiritual journey to enlightenment. You can find your way to heaven and God via the "Sun of God's" wisdom. No Miracle performing hippie Jew's were required before and I fail to see how sprouting the same fundamental idea just with a figurehead for a disenfranchised Jewish noble family anchored to everything helps?

You do realize that the word son and the word sun, in hebrew or in egyptian, aren't even remotely similar don't you? The word Christ does mean the anointed one, that is what the Messiah is. Jesus *is* the Christ. In regards to Horus being Christ, and a lot of other things you said, please take a look at this:

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/#horus

Are there some pearl's of Jesus's wisdom I missed? Thus far I have yet to come across anything that didn't strike me as either a rewording of things wise men had preached for 1000's of years previously, or a power play by an unscrupulous or deluded individual.

Read the gospel of John and pray to God and ask Him to help you understand it.

I happen to know its hotly contested even to this day but lets for the sake of this just take it as a given. When I said "at best a fabrication" it was because I consider the historical figure to be an impostor and a fraud. If anyone was a "true" messiah then John the Baptist and moreover Simon Magus are far better contenders but then that's a colossal can of worms I'm not sure I can be bothered to open at the moment.

John the baptist said he wasn't the Messiah and Simon was outdone by Philip.

I'll just say in summary that I am of the opinion that Mr. Ben Yosef and his crew were plotting to return the house of David to power but largely failed in the end as the Roman establishment usurped most of the legacy they tried to create (though not entirely).

The missing part of this theory is the explanation for the empty tomb.

Either way they worshiped and championed a being (Psychological archetype) which I feel I have little choice but to call Satan i.e. the God of Abraham. This alone is a pretty major indictment for me and any historic figure that puts said "being" at the center of their belief system will garner my suspicion.

How can the God that appeared to Abraham be anything but malevolent if the accounts in the Torah and Quran are accurate?

The quran isn't accurate, but if you read the Old Testament without humanistic glasses on, you'll find it was the humans who were malevolent and God was who long suffering with them.

I understand now why you garner such hostility from other Sifters . Still at least your trying to engage me intellectually, in that respect at least you may consider yourself light years ahead of most of your brethren.

There appear to be two fundamental points of disagreement/misunderstanding here.

First if your reliance on Aristotelian Logic to attack my Dialectic argument. When I said you were using the language with which I described to counter instead of addressing the underlying concept it was to this I was alluding (not clearly enough it seems).
Philosophers (good ones anyway) have largely up on traditional Aristotelian logic as a means to extrapolate objective truth because it functions only upon linguistic syntax. The very fact that such a fundamental assertion as "nothing is true" is mutually contradictory as a prime example of this. The language we use to describe and frame the problem simultaneously limits our ability to comprehend it. As I suspect you well know deeper conceptual matters are often too deep to be fully expressed by mere syntax based language.
Instead we apply Hegel's Dialectic:

Thesis- all statements are false

Antithesis- therefore the above statement must be false and some statements must be true

Synthesis- statements can be both true and false simultaneously!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Nothing is true" is mere expression. It is a poetic sounding mantra which contains therein a deeper wisdom about the foundations of all human knowledge. You are not specially equipped to break the problem of "under-determination" as outlined by Philosophers like David Hume. God himself could appear to you and say/do anything he liked, it would not change the fundamental limits of the human condition.

How could you possibly know for certain that it was not Satan out to trick you? Satan is a deeply powerful being after all, powerful enough to fabricate a profound spiritual experience don't you think? How could you ever prove that the God you worship is not the greatest impostor in the cosmos beyond all doubt? I ask this because the God you worship DEMANDS that you do in fact worship him (and only him) on threat of divine punishment. No true God would ever require worship, let alone demand it! What kind of sick egotist are we dealing with? (the changes in the system related to that whole Jesus thing don;t make a difference here. Either This "God" started perfect or it is not what it claims to be! Past crimes count no matter what token amends were made later on)


Your not the only one to have experienced encounters with things you might call "Gods" or "Angels/Daemons". But the God I found lies entirely within and demands/threatens ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and sets ABSOLUTELY NO CONDITIONS. It knows that all Monads (souls) will inevitably make their way back to it, and that it has the patience of eternity with which to wait.
The fundamental difference is that this God did not create the universe (an absurd answer which demands infinitely more explanation than it provides), this God is created BY THE UNIVERSE!
We are all "God" experiencing itself subjectively as it evolves teleologically towards perfection. If Consciousness is eternal then this is the only outcome that makes any sense. God being perfect and beyond all time experiences everything it is conceivably possible for a perfect being to experience within an instant of non-time. With all of eternity stretched it before it does the only sensible thing it could do, it commits suicide and returns the universe to a state of pure potential, ready to undergo the experience of evolving from the most basic "mathematical" principles to fully actualised and all powerful consciousness (i.e. back at God again). A fundamental part of this entire process is the journey from elemental and animalistic unconsciousness to fully self aware enlightened consciousness, the highest truth then is to discover that you yourself are God (at least in-potentia), not some mysterious external power.

R>=0 (R= distance between two points)



The other is your conviction that the Gospel is absolutely true and that you appear to see everything related to it and the greater human spiritual quest via this filter. I'm not going to trade scripture with you on matters of pedantry it'll take all day and get neither of us anywhere. Instead I shall focus on one key argument that undermines the entire house of cards. If the God of Abraham and the old testament is one in the same as the God of which Jesus preaches (/is in corporeal form) and further more that the Old testament is in some way a true account of his/its actions......Then the God of Abraham and Jesus is demonstrably A. not perfect and B. malevolent/incompetent.

Go ask the Benjamites or the Canaanites how they feel about this "God". Or how about the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah? The firstborn of Egypt? etc. etc.

Yaweh demands Abraham sacrifice his own son, truly the act of a benevolent creature no? And while were on the subject what kind of "God" demands a blood sacrifice for anything? Even if it was a legitimate test of Abrahams faith (a highly dubious notion unto itself) what about the poor goat sacrificed in his sons stead?
This leads into the key difference between the Gnostic God/The Buddha/Dau/Chi etc. (Esoteric) and the Abrahamic God (Exoteric).....

One merely offers the wisdom to transcend the suffering inherent in mortal life and make ones way back to union with that which we were all along. It is not invested in the material world, it is merely a higher expression of consciousness no longer bound by emergent natural laws. It never judges, it never condemns or punishes and it helps only those who are ready to help themselves.

The other demands blood sacrifices, incites genocides, sets strict rules and threatens you with damnation if you don't obey, demands worship (WORSHIP! WTF!!!!), inspires/authors deeply contradictory and difficult to understand written works (it expects you to accept on faith alone), claims to be a perfect creator of a universe into which suffering and imperfection are inherent (perfect beings do not create imperfect things) etc. etc.

I don't side with Lucifer (I think she has the opposite problem to Jehova i.e. enlightenment at all costs as quickly as possible and damm the journey to get there), but I do recognise her as the fundamentally opposing force to Jehovah/Allah out of which a higher synthesis emerges (Abraxas the Gnostic God of light, or whatever you want to call it). Jehovah represents supreme attachment to the material world (R>0), while Lucifer supreme attachment to the spiritual/mental (R=0). A wise man see's the two as a personification of the two highest drives in the human psyche and thus concepts to be transcended/mastered.
Or if you want to put your scientific head on for a moment they represent the Left and Right hand brain (all truths are relative, one can approach this from a purely psychological/neuroscience position and argue the same case just with less colourful imagery ).

Either way I regard worshipping the God of Abraham as the "one true God" to be a supreme mistake, if Jesus professes to preach that same God's gospel then following him would be a supreme mistake also. I show no fealty to torture Gods, I have more self respect than that.


For the record. I love you as much as any other creature in this cosmos but I don't pray to anything for your soul to be saved. Truly it was never in jeopardy in the first place! That part of you which lies beyond the limits of mortality will find its way back to the highest state eventually no matter what, even if it takes eons. In the mean time however I'm happy to waste a small portion of said eons arguing (I suspect futilely) with you on the internet.

(I'll get back to you on some of your other more specific points at a later point, I don't have the time or inclination to dig out the texts to make those counter arguments right now.)

I suspect you've heard it all over the place in various different forms . Crowley merely translated and expounded upon it, the fundamentals of the mantra itself have done the rounds in the Occult and Esoteric circles for millenia. ("nothing is true..." goes back 1000's of years also).

you guys keep mistaking shiny's long winded-ness for intelligence.

Trying to read his posts is like trying to read Ayn Rand. I can only take so much self-importance and self-masturbatory rambling.

Jeepers, I finally understand why people don't like me!! Golly, I should do something to keep from being IGNORED.....willikers!!

Hey bareboards2.....Am I on "Ignore" anymore?

The ignore option was created through consensus of a minority of users who tend to avoid any confrontation at all costs, including self-expansion and awareness-While I may disagree with a particular user's methods or madness and become highly agitated with political spammage and human suffering for the sake of entertainment, or atheism-as-religion, I'd much rather engage than ignore....

Hey-All you Star Trek addicts??? How much more boring would your plot formulas play out if Picard's frequent entreats to "Engage" were replaced with the coward's war cry, "Ignore!"

Sorry choggie, "You Have "0" Friends."

Your Facebook account is now terminated. (Thank you , Lord!)

welp...Ching's back on ignore.

At the very least, I hope you all have at least apologized to @bareboards2 for hijacking her sift and turning it into a total stroke-fest.

the sift needs some active moderation here....badly.

兄弟 Hayng Dai Chairman_woo, Hayng Dai.兄弟

@Chairman_woo -- I'm not hostile towards shiny. I don't use "ignore" in a hostile way. I just don't want to see it. It's too much. As I said above, we rarely see HIM. Years back, I attempted to engage with him as a person, told him I needed to hear something else from him, asked him some non-offensive personal questions (what are your hobbies, that sort of thing).

Just to get past the wall of words and lecture and see the person.

Nothing. He gave me back nothing.

I'm not hostile. I'm indifferent.

If you put someone on ignore, the wall of text collapses to a single line that you don't have to scroll through endlessly.

And @chingalera -- curiosity got the better of me, and I did read your response to my post. And yes, you are still on ignore. Again, not from hostility. It is about the same thing as shiny -- I just don't see YOU enough. It is all attitude and attempting to pick a fight. Why would I bother with that?

@BoneRemake, who is now gone, now banned, was pretty much roundly disliked here on the Sift. Difficult, argumentative, loved to rile people up and get them mad. Him I adored. Because he wasn't just that. When he wasn't being a pain, he was sweet, creative, generous, funny. He loves to cook. He loves to make things. He loves music.

Bone is a person. I miss him. But ching -- for me, I just see a wall of attitude. Shiny for me is a wall of preaching.

There is "no one home" for me with you guys. And if you are not home for me, then I am not home for you.

No hostility. Choice.

Nonsense.

"I just don't see YOU enough. It is all attitude and attempting to pick a fight. Why would I bother with that?"

Uhhhh, I'm always here-This persona on the sift is nothing but who I am, always. I am just as ineloquent and acerbic in person and online-You should know this- How many times have you blocked my profile on match.com now??

But seriously now, how many times have you sought me out in another forum or discourse?-You know absolutely everything there is to know about me should you care to, and the door has always been open for anyone who wants to shed their sift-ego and have a go-Ask anyone with whom I chat regularly, there are several varieties of fruit grafted to this tree-Perspective is much more broadened when you gather information from a vantage greater than a single point.

"Ignore" is the same thing to me as someone saying, "Have a Nice Day"

Have a nice day sounds like a "fuck you" to me-

and I will be the first to accuse myself of abusing "The Word."

"In the beginning, was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god."-I am guilty of abusing the medium of information exchange available to us monkeys and robots....The worst violator of all, since I know what I'm doing and when.....Ego is a motherfucker, innit??

oh shit....I failed to capitalize "God" while quoting scripture(Gen:1:1)..Apologies to shinnyblurry, it was intentional laziness and a subtle jab at a surety encountered daily here in Bible-central, Texas.

And No, I am unconvinced that "God" as referenced in the verse above refers to "Jesus."

Oh -- and because I still miss my lovely @BoneRemake, another reason I adored him was his honesty. Searing honesty. Even when he was being his most pain-in-the-butt, there was something honest about it, in a convoluted way.

I miss him.

So ends my Wake for Bone.

I too miss BoneRemake, Blankfist, kronospissahh, and all the flaming cretins who left their stained class...(no one in wake room, defiles corpses for pleasure)

@VoodooV One of my favourite quotes is roughly "Intelligence isn't explaining simple things in a complex way, it's explaining complex things in a simple way".

@Chairman_woo I enjoyed your posts and appreciate the effort that you put in.
To save you a bit of time I'll give you the blurry formula: Quote scripture, word-play/twisting, mental-gymnastics, confusion via expansion of points, and all of these include subject relation/alteration by way of small technicalities.
There's also the exhaustion effect, but this is more a byproduct from Shiny's genuine (and respectable) effort to converse on matters of interest.
Also what you detected from some sifters is due to many trying before you.

@Drax lol. Nailed it.

It's incredible how malleable the human brain is.

It just goes to show how much power peers have over someone (usually a child or a stupid or desperate person), to convince them to disregard their intellect and common sense in favor of blind obedience to incredible, nonsensical tales of grandeur.

Atheism is like a nuclear bomb for internet forums.

jesus christ you idiots get over yourselves.

I assume the sift tracks the IPs of its users, but my alternate account sense is tingling.

what a profoundly sad thread this has become.

i am not referring to the most excellent posts by @Chairman_woo and his discourse with @shinyblurry.

no.

it is the ignore function use i am talking about.
what an intellectually weak and vapid excuse to not engage with those who you may disagree with or (gasp) not actually like.

are your tender sensibilities so fragile as to not survive scrutiny of one who may disagree? or is it the manner in which they disagree?
is THAT the measure of how you judge anothers ideas?
words?
and you find this to be a valid reason?
this makes sense in your world?

well allow me to point out that without the dissenting voice challenging your preconceptions and only allowing those that parrot the same homogenized,pastuerized vanilla-same cloned vomit will only serve to create a stagnant pond of lifeless banality.

but as long as you are safe in your little bubble world in which you are always right and the circle-jerk perpetuates a lackluster and flaccid worldview.then thats ok right? as long as the echo chamber reflects how RIGHT you are.

@chingalera offends you?
good! because maybe you needed to be offended.

@VoodooV we have to apologize to @bareboards2 for derailing her thread?
no we fucking dont.
human discourse is by its very nature an ugly evolving creature.so get over yourself.love your commentary,hate your high horse..so get the fuck off it.

@bareboards2 is a very nice and sweet woman,and sometimes can be sensitive but she is a big girl and i dont think we will find her weeping in a dark,curtains drawn room.in fact i am willing to bet she loves the fact her video got such a great discussion going.so who are you to judge? or tell us what we should or should not do for that matter?

this brings me all back to my main point.
the sift used to have a vibrant community that discussed,argued and debated.the arguments were legendary and we still see old skool sifters refer to these people with fondness,even if they disagreed with them vehemently.
they were passionate and had something to say.
the list reads like a funeral march to those great voices who have passed and no longer engage in the sift:@MINK,@rougy,@choggie,@thinker247,@joedirt

what do we have now?
bunch of panty waist pussies who will only jump on the band wagon because other people join in the carnage.jumping on @BoBknight,@shinyblurry,@Lantern.
its like a bully convention with free crystal meth.
these folks might as well be black living in mississippi in the 1800's.
look! a chrsitan fundamentalist!
a conservative right winger!
lets lynch em......

and those tired pussies dont even have the courage to choke on their own hypocrisy.
wont even acknowledge that those in the minority have some serious balls to post comments on a secular left site.
this hasnt become a self-masturbatory thread.
its one big circle jerk.

so to those old skool peeps that i know still lurk here on the sift.
please come back.
for the love of god come back.
because these pussies are to busy sucking each others dicks.

im going to get some fresh air because you fuckers have sucked all the vibrance out of the air and left it stale with your own hubris.

and for the love of christ.get the fuck over yourself.

This above all else: no.

Lack of moderation is one of the greatest things about the Sift. The culture itself is the moderation.

edited --

I don't want to see the endless and interminable posts that puff up around shinyblurry like Pigpen in a Peanuts cartoon. They bore me. They slow down my ability to read posts that I enjoy.

I have a slick tool to use. I am using it.

That isn't censorship or cowering behind a curtain.

It is free will.

@enoch

you honestly think this shitstorm of a "discussion" is a good example of debate and discourse? It started off nice enough but the @shinyblurry web-bot detected the word atheist in its search algorithms and ran its "scripture_dump_#647.bat" script and then insecure @chingalera heard the commotion and decided that enough people weren't paying enough attention to him so he had to enter the fray.

and of course the people who just haven't been around long enough to know how those two operate unwittingly took their bait and assumed that these people were actually genuine and engaged them and viola! instant shitstorm

This has nothing to do with taking offense. You honestly think we ignore people merely because we disagree with them? Fuck that and fuck you for thinking so. We ignore people because we don't think they add anything to the discussion and their posts eventually become noise and distraction.

This has everything to do with people who have no actual interest in the community here and are just here to push an agenda or they're here to agitate people in a non-constructive way.

there is NO debate in this thread, there is NO discourse here. just brick walls and trolling.

@messenger this is EXACTLY why moderation is needed because this thread demonstrates exactly how there is NO self-moderation going on. Things are blowing up now until the next time someone falls for the chigalera/shinyblurry trap and we do this all over again lather rinse repeat and zero progress.

This sift keeps naively assuming that everyone wants to contribute constructively. Not everyone does. Some people are just attention whores. Dissent and offense is fine as long as it can be done constructively and you can at least make a decent argument to back it up. Most of us do that here, but non-insignificant number of us don't And sometimes you have to pull out the weeds.

Not every opinion is equal. You want debate and discourse here? Well there are rules and a structure to that. If you can't back your shit up or you commit blatant logical fallacies or are non-constructive, expect to get your ass kicked. That isn't squashing dissent, that's enforcing a standard.

After having read all that, I feel I deserve a free t-shirt or something.

"I read the longest thread on the sift 2013, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt"

I don't blame anyone either. Almost everyone I know is religious. Kudos to them. Just stop making me say crap I don't believe. That's all, really! lol

Hey, do you thank Cthulhu for your existence? No? Ok, well, fuck you. Except instead of being vulgar, seek within your EGO so that you may say it with more meaningful, mental pressure and stress inducing guilt. Amirite? Stop guilting us, please. Thanks.

I understand now why you garner such hostility from other Sifters . Still at least your trying to engage me intellectually, in that respect at least you may consider yourself light years ahead of most of your brethren.

I garner hostility here because most of the sifters here grew up in Christian households and they've rebelled against their parents and God and they don't want to hear anything about Him. This is their sanctuary where they enjoy mocking God and Christians without any dissenting voices. I'm here because I care but I wouldn't be here unless God told me to be here. I've tried to leave a few times and He keeps sending me back. Although not so much lately.

There appear to be two fundamental points of disagreement/misunderstanding here.

...Instead we apply Hegel's Dialectic:

Thesis- all statements are false

Antithesis- therefore the above statement must be false and some statements must be true

Synthesis- statements can be both true and false simultaneously!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are two ways, and only two ways, to know truth. Either you are omnipotent, or an omnipotent being reveals it to you. Since humans are not omnipotent it is impossible to know truth unless it is revealed to us by an omnipotent being, ie God. If you think there is another way to know truth, name it. Otherwise what is there to debate? If you don't think it's possible to know truth then you don't know anything. If you don't know anything then you have nothing to talk about.

"Nothing is true" is mere expression. It is a poetic sounding mantra which contains therein a deeper wisdom about the foundations of all human knowledge. You are not specially equipped to break the problem of "under-determination" as outlined by Philosophers like David Hume. God himself could appear to you and say/do anything he liked, it would not change the fundamental limits of the human condition.

Could God reveal Himself to you in a way that you could be absolutely certain of it? It doesn't matter what we can prove to one another; God could sufficiently prove Himself to me (He has) or to you and it would transcend every piece of rationale you've offered.

How could you possibly know for certain that it was not Satan out to trick you? Satan is a deeply powerful being after all, powerful enough to fabricate a profound spiritual experience don't you think? How could you ever prove that the God you worship is not the greatest impostor in the cosmos beyond all doubt?

I know it for certain because God has made me certain. I've seen things only an omnipotent God could do, such as arranging and timing circumstances which would require Him to be in complete and precise control of everything and everyone. Satan certainly can generate profound spiritual experiences (and blindness), which is why he is able to deceive the whole world.

I ask this because the God you worship DEMANDS that you do in fact worship him (and only him) on threat of divine punishment. No true God would ever require worship, let alone demand it! What kind of sick egotist are we dealing with? (the changes in the system related to that whole Jesus thing don;t make a difference here. Either This "God" started perfect or it is not what it claims to be! Past crimes count no matter what token amends were made later on)

God doesn't need us, woo. He had perfect love within His Trinity relationships before He created anything. He doesn't demand that we worship Him because He is egotistical, He commands us to worship Him to put us in right relationship with Him as the supreme good and sustainer of all things. He is the only appropiate object for our adoration, which also puts us in right relationship with other people. Human beings are built to worship; that is why the world is littered with the carcasses of false idols. I don't just mean pagan deities, I mean power, money, fame and all of the other things human beings lust and pine away for. The thing man most likes to worship is himself. Humanists worship the intellect, and the accomplishments of human civilization. These too are idols. Everyone has something they worship, when God is the only appropiate object of our worship. The love that we have to give to all of those things comes from Him, and that is why we return it to Him, which in turn leads to greater love for all people and things. Every other kind of worship is selfish and ultimately spiritual dead(and destructive). Thus this command to worship Him alone (we were created to be in relationship with Him) is for our growth, our protection, and so that we can be who He created us to be.

Your not the only one to have experienced encounters with things you might call "Gods" or "Angels/Daemons". But the God I found lies entirely within and demands/threatens ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and sets ABSOLUTELY NO CONDITIONS. It knows that all Monads (souls) will inevitably make their way back to it, and that it has the patience of eternity with which to wait.

How do you know that?

The fundamental difference is that this God did not create the universe (an absurd answer which demands infinitely more explanation than it provides), this God is created BY THE UNIVERSE!

The explanation you provide only pushes the "absurdity" back one step; you're still left with the same problem as you say I have. Yet, it is not a problem to believe in something eternal. To believe something came from nothing wouldbe the absurdity. Do you believe the Universe is eternal?

We are all "God" experiencing itself subjectively as it evolves teleologically towards perfection. If Consciousness is eternal then this is the only outcome that makes any sense. God being perfect and beyond all time experiences everything it is conceivably possible for a perfect being to experience within an instant of non-time. With all of eternity stretched it before it does the only sensible thing it could do, it commits suicide and returns the universe to a state of pure potential, ready to undergo the experience of evolving from the most basic "mathematical" principles to fully actualised and all powerful consciousness (i.e. back at God again). A fundamental part of this entire process is the journey from elemental and animalistic unconsciousness to fully self aware enlightened consciousness, the highest truth then is to discover that you yourself are God (at least in-potentia), not some mysterious external power.

If God is perfect, which He is, then He isn't limited. His joy never ends; it is the limitation of the human intellect that prevents you from understanding an infinite being, so you have devised a scenario based on those limitations where you impose a limitation on Gods experience so that He is forced to "commit suicide" in order to have new and enjoyable experiences. An infinite being experiences infinite joy. A perfect being will always be perfect. God doesn't evolve; a perfect being has no need to evolve or ever become "basic". He is eternally perfect, and we are not.

1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

The other is your conviction that the Gospel is absolutely true and that you appear to see everything related to it and the greater human spiritual quest via this filter. I'm not going to trade scripture with you on matters of pedantry it'll take all day and get neither of us anywhere. Instead I shall focus on one key argument that undermines the entire house of cards. If the God of Abraham and the old testament is one in the same as the God of which Jesus preaches (/is in corporeal form) and further more that the Old testament is in some way a true account of his/its actions......Then the God of Abraham and Jesus is demonstrably A. not perfect and B. malevolent/incompetent.

Yes, the God Abraham is the God Jesus is referring to. The error is that you think you understand God better than Jesus did. Jesus is the perfect representation of God; His exact image. If you've seen Jesus you have seen the Father. They are one and the same in terms of their character and every other attribute. You don't see that because you don't understand the scriptures. Jesus did, which is why He said things like this:

John 17:23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.

The atheist version of studying the bible is to look for something that seems to contradict the claims of Christians so that they can throw it in the garbage and be done with it. You would see the same God that Jesus represents in the Old Testament if you understood the history that it presents.

Go ask the Benjamites or the Canaanites how they feel about this "God". Or how about the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah? The firstborn of Egypt? etc. etc.

Go ask the criminals on death row how they feel about the judge and prosecutor who sent them there. Does that mean they don't deserve to be there?

Yaweh demands Abraham sacrifice his own son, truly the act of a benevolent creature no? And while were on the subject what kind of "God" demands a blood sacrifice for anything? Even if it was a legitimate test of Abrahams faith (a highly dubious notion unto itself) what about the poor goat sacrificed in his sons stead?
This leads into the key difference between the Gnostic God/The Buddha/Dau/Chi etc. (Esoteric) and the Abrahamic God (Exoteric).....

God didn't ask Abraham to do anything that He wasn't willing to do Himself, but unlike Abraham God did sacrifice His son. This is what I mean when I say that you you're not understanding what you're reading. The sacrifice of Issac is a picture of Jesus Christ. You don't see these things because you don't know what to look for.

One merely offers the wisdom to transcend the suffering inherent in mortal life and make ones way back to union with that which we were all along. It is not invested in the material world, it is merely a higher expression of consciousness no longer bound by emergent natural laws. It never judges, it never condemns or punishes and it helps only those who are ready to help themselves.

The other demands blood sacrifices, incites genocides, sets strict rules and threatens you with damnation if you don't obey, demands worship (WORSHIP! WTF!!!!), inspires/authors deeply contradictory and difficult to understand written works (it expects you to accept on faith alone), claims to be a perfect creator of a universe into which suffering and imperfection are inherent (perfect beings do not create imperfect things) etc. etc.

Here is the difference..the God you describe wants to "help" you out of a situation that it created because of its own limitations and need for self-gratification. It is not only responsible for evil, but it does nothing about it. The God you describe is limited, selfish and immoral.

The way you describe my God is a strawman argument in itself. It is not an accurate representation of the biblical account. The God of the Universe created a perfect Universe and endowed His creatures with free will. The creatures He created freely chose to do evil and this is what brought sin and death into the world. This is the reason for the imperfection, and God, at great personal cost to Himself, restored and reconciled His creation through Jesus Christ.

You won't be able to understand the bible without Gods help:

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

That's why I suggested you read the gospel of John, if you really do want to understand God accurately, and pray for assistance.

I don't side with Lucifer (I think she has the opposite problem to Jehova i.e. enlightenment at all costs as quickly as possible and damm the journey to get there), but I do recognise her as the fundamentally opposing force to Jehovah/Allah out of which a higher synthesis emerges (Abraxas the Gnostic God of light, or whatever you want to call it). Jehovah represents supreme attachment to the material world (R>0),

It's a false dichotomy. What you're describing when you refer to God is the gnostic demiurge, which bears no resemblence to the God of the bible. There are no opposing forces to be spoken of because there is no actual duality. God is only light and the only thing He is attached to is His children, because He freely loves them. He is the only power in the Universe. Satan has a paper kingdom; it is just shadows on the wall. In any case, you can't escape the corruption caused by your sin nature. If you shatter a mirror, no matter how well you glue it back together it will never reflect purely again. It doesn't need to be repaired, it needs to be replaced. This is why Jesus said you need to be born again:

John 3:3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

When you receive Jesus as Lord and Savior, He will send the Holy Spirit to live inside of you and make you a new person. You are spiritually dead in sins and transgressions, but the Holy Spirit will regenerate your spirit and cleanse you from all of your sin.

while Lucifer supreme attachment to the spiritual/mental (R=0). A wise man see's the two as a personification of the two highest drives in the human psyche and thus concepts to be transcended/mastered.

Satan desired one thing, which was to be God. He became prideful because of his great beauty and intellect and based on his ignorance of Gods true nature, he tried to form a rebellion against God to replace Him and was kicked out of Heaven. This is essentially the process you are describing for those who believe they are God. All Satan is trying to do is duplicate his errors in you and as many other people as he can so that he can destroy them before his time comes. He can't strike back at God directly so he goes after his creatures. Satan is an imitator; he is a potter just as God is a potter. He is doing everything possible to shape and mold you into his image and character, and he has entire universes of deception waiting for you, filled with as much "secret knowledge and wisdom" as you desire. He has a door for every kind of person, every kind of philosophy; his is the broad road that leads to destruction. Jesus said enter through the narrow gate:

Mat 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.

Mat 7:14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

Either way I regard worshipping the God of Abraham as the "one true God" to be a supreme mistake, if Jesus professes to preach that same God's gospel then following him would be a supreme mistake also. I show no fealty to torture Gods, I have more self respect than that.

You surely prefer the idol you have created in your own mind, because that is the god who allows you to do whatever you want. That's all this is really about. Do you know what Jesus said the reason is that men won't come to God?:

John 3:19-21

19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

You don't get to decide who God is, and just because you don't think you should be accountable for what you've done in this life doesn't mean you won't be.

For the record. I love you as much as any other creature in this cosmos but I don't pray to anything for your soul to be saved. Truly it was never in jeopardy in the first place! That part of you which lies beyond the limits of mortality will find its way back to the highest state eventually no matter what, even if it takes eons. In the mean time however I'm happy to waste a small portion of said eons arguing (I suspect futilely) with you on the internet.

God loves you and I love you, and that's why I am telling you all of this. The highest state is the lowest state:

Mat 23:11 The greatest among you shall be your servant.

Mat 23:12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

(I'll get back to you on some of your other more specific points at a later point, I don't have the time or inclination to dig out the texts to make those counter arguments right now.)

Take your time. God bless.

That just isn't true. @bareboards2 did in fact write to me to get to know me better, and I replied in kind. I wrote a very detailed letter and talked about my life to which I don't remember whether it was replied to or not..but it was either at our first or second correspondence that bareboards didn't bother to even write back. Maybe bareboards didn't see it..I don't know, but the way it is being portrayed here is false. People see me through the lens of caricature because of their ideas about Christians in general that stem from the atheist hive mind.

@bareboards2
my comment was not really directed at you my dear.i painted my premise with a broad brush that expanded from this thread and addressed something i have found to be more and more practiced on the sift.

you posted your reasons why you used the ignore.
to get rid of the "rabble" and make it easier to read posts you enjoy.
now if that means posts that you agree with or dont find offensive ..well..that is kind of my point.

and you are so right.we all have a right to our opinion and in my opinion to sequester posts you disagree or find offensive is intellectually weak.

@VoodooV you literally just made my entire point by your post and i dont know if that was on purpose or by freak accident.

while i agree with your assertion that @shinyblurry tends to wade in the copy/paste waters and he dwells in circular logic land.you have to give the boy props for lending a perspective of a christian fundamentalist on a mainly secular left site.

that boy can rile you all up like a stick to a hornets nest.which is endless entertainment for me.

but lets change that paradigm shall we?
why dont you head down to your nearest baptist church and hand out fliers concerning evolution to the congregation and tell them god doesnt exist.

then maybe you would know what it feels like to get blasted by all sides at once.while shiny lacks in clear debate skills.you gotta admire his courage.

as for @chingalera seeking attention.
i dunno.
maybe you are right.
but the real question is how did you come to that conclusion?
by what means did you discern his intentions?motivations?
crystal ball? black magic? a little fairy come by and whisper in your ear?

no.
you used your OWN subjective understanding.your OWN experiences to presume the motivations of another sifter.
thats weak sauce and you better than that.

and then..finally..you ask for a daddy to come in straighten out the people who you:disagree with.argue in a way you dont find constructive (but may be they do).derail threads that maybe you would have enjoyed more if those pesky kids hadnt messed everything up.

the world dont revolve around you so get over yourself man.for fuck sakes!

i was sincere when i said i love your commentary because i truly do.
smart,witty and you usually have something to say.i ADORE your commentary but you are being self righteous on this thread.

i did something very similar last week to @renatojj and he called me out.he was right and i was wrong.

stop trying to impose your ideals of what constructive participation is based solely on your own and limited understanding.
this is not your sift but rather OURS and things will become chaotic at times.

the sift is organic.
allow it to metamorph into whatever it will become.
we do not need a big daddy to direct where it goes and thats the beauty of this site.

the irony in all this exchange between you and i is that i feel you have something to say and have always admired that about you.
allow other people to have their say as well.

Time for a voice of moderation:

1) Take a deep breath
2) Pick a number between 1 and 50
3) Imagine you're having sex with that # user from: http://videosift.com/topusers

This demonstrates my point perfectly that not all opinions are equal

One opinion has reason and history behind it. The other does not.

This is not left versus right, this is not "I like you" vs "I don't like you"

This is defensible argument vs indefensible argument. End of fucking story.

I picked 42. @lucky760 is about to get a whole lot luckier.

I guess that makes top 50 something to aspire to...

This post has stirred up some *controversy; I like it!

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by Norsuelefantti.

I'm extremely sympathetic to anyone who upon rejecting Christianity was rejected by their family or community. My heart goes out to anyone in that situation. It's wrong and it's extremely hurtful and its a violation against everything Jesus taught. I too am sick to my core in regards to the ugliness which has been done in the name of God.

What's wrong however is turning that into an indictment against Jesus, who taught people to do the exact opposite. What I should have said is this..that I am sure there are many atheists here who were raised in dead religion and whose parents never taught them how to have a personal relationship with Christ. That's on their parents because that was their entire job. I don't blame people for walking away from that because it is pointless. If there isn't a real God you can be in relationship with then why bother? Even Paul said that:

1Co 15:16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised.

1Co 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

1Co 15:18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.

1Co 15:19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

He said that if Christ is not raised we are of all people most to be pitied, and he is right. I don't blame people for seeing it that way because I agree with Paul.

However, there is the other side of the coin where a lot of these atheists did know the Lord, and they turned away from Him because of sin. They went out into the world and the world got ahold of them and they turned their back on God. God has given some people some extraordinary evidence, from visitations from angels to out of body experience yet they still deny Him because they prefer to have their personal autonomy. Sin is extremely deceitful and they forget all of the things God has shown them to justify their rejection of Christ.

It's a complex issue in some cases and I am sorry for being obtuse. If you're one of those you described I am sure you have your reasons for believing what you do. What I can tell you is that Jesus never wronged you and He still loves you as much as He did then. He has been knocking at your door your entire life but it's up to you to answer it.

My god comments people.
You have spun out of control.

Some nice little lady says "oh but I am an atheist" and it devolves into an atheist vs. christianity debacle.

I am not impressed with how much you can all type.
You need to find a new god....not a non-god or sun-god ...but a spaghetti monster type god that will clear your babbling heads with his noodly appendages.

I had faith in the Spaghetti once, but then the big G found that it was frozen, store bought. Not fresh and handmade like was told by the spiteful one.

Here's what I took away from reading through this insanely long thread:

1) You're extremely unlikely to change a total stranger's opinion about something deeply personal such as religion with an Internet comment.
2) That doesn't seem to discourage some people from trying.

That is all.

Community cannot develop when you have official moderators. It's like having police officers standing inside every bar -- they prevent most of the fights, but kill the atmosphere -- not because people were going to break the law, but because people behave differently around the po-po.

If you don't like these threads, you're always free not to read them, but if conversations I like get moderated out of existence, I can't go read them. Further, if I know there's moderators about, I'll self-censor like in the bar example above, and that's even worse. Moderation/no moderation is a trade-off either way. I think the sensible move is continuing not to have any of it here.

Both true, but that's not always the root purpose.

Viewpoints and particularly very strong opinions and beliefs spread through communication. Some people are saying something that others find objectionable and they don't want it to go unchallenged.

I'm more concerned here about a famous reporter from a first world superpower asking such a question in the first place. What kind of crazy twisted media engine would allow pushing this point the way he did?

100th comment! Congratulations everybody!

Everyone who uses that option has their own reason as to why they use it. Just a thought, it may or may not fit your idea as to why you think they use it.

I pooped green today. I made earths

I don't think we need a moderator either. If someone is egregiously and personally attacking someone, they can get temporarily or permanently banned by our Benevolent Dictator @dag. Some folks don't like that, but I think it is why the Sift is such a grand place -- the trolls are moderated and if they DON'T self censor, out they go. That doesn't bother me in the least (even though I miss Bone, I get why he is gone.)

What bothers me -- and I have started to write this a couple of times, but I SELF CENSORED -- is when these long "discussions" devolve to essentially two people going back and forth. It ceases to be about the particular video, and becomes about the two Sifters. Nothing wrong with the exchange, but why can't they move it to their personal profiles? Anyone who wants to follow it, can.

But I have learned here on the Sift to never ask anyone to do anything, because all of Holy Hell will descend upon my head, and I will be accused of a host of sins for making a request.

So no request here. Just a suggestion that maybe if you find yourself in a duo-logue (or dueling monologues?), you might consider just sliding over to your personal page.

Or not. Whatever. It's just pixels.

Whoa. Is this finality? Time to join Morganth for a 2-peep wolf-pack of Blitzer!!
THIS JUST IN: Catastrophe News Network Sends Choad-For- Ratings To Disaster Zone
☟➘☟➘☟➘☟➘☟➘☟

I disagree, I think you garner hostility here because you do not add to the discussion, you merely spout your hyper religious nonsense ad nauseaum and flail and spin to make your arguments, while ignoring or twisting all input from others and even your own previous statements. That, and you have to write an essay or novel to answer each single line question.
At least those are my issues with you. There are plenty of other religious thinkers here that aren't being mass-ignored. That proves your 'they don't like christianity' stance is obvious BS, it's something else.
I grew up in a non-theistic household, and I'm just sick of the endless ridiculous fanatical ramblings. I haven't ignored you, I just don't read most of it. As soon as you start quoting the bible I stop reading, because I see that as a cop out that fanatics use when they can't make a rational argument, 'I know it's true because my fairy tale book tells me so" is not a rational argument, it is an indicator that the speaker is incapable of making one.

A christian posting on a secular website garners hostility, and that's pretty much universal. You'll find it in the comment section of any news story regarding anything even remotely about religion, you'll find it on youtube, twitter, facebook, web forums..basically everywhere. Where ever a Christian voices an opinion 5 atheists appear to mock him..I think that's a rule on the internet.

Most Christians (and other religious people) post on secular websites freely without any issue. It is only the zealous, hyper religious people that can't form a thought that isn't based on their fairy tale book that regularly garner animus.
The idea that Christians are persecuted by the non-religious is laughable. The opposite is true, in real life and the internet. When one side of an argument is arguing for exclusion or hatred of a group, it's invariably the religious side making that argument. Because you can find one post in 1000 that's blatantly anti-religious doesn't make you persecuted. What about the 250 in 1000 posts that are blatantly anti-secularism (like each and every post of yours I've ever read even part of)? I'm guessing that, like logic and rationality, you ignore them in favor of your story book answers and your imaginary friend's 'laws'.

@shinyblurry
@newtboy has offered you his reasoning on the "whys" and he is not the first who has pointed this out to you.
his criticism does not come off as an attack on you at all but rather a fair assessment on how you interact in discussions here on the sift and i have seen many others (including myself) who have offered the same criticism.
@bareboards2 alluded to this very practice right here on this thread.

so while i will defend your right to be here and say what you need to say and ask empathy from others who may interact with you,i cannot understand your logic in posting walls of text peppered with biblical verses.
you acknowledge the fact this is a secular site yet continue to post scripture to people who have no interest in said scripture.

you cannot force people to give scripture the validity that you give it.

so you really cant blame people for tuning you out when you quote-mine,deflect,contradict and go verse crazy.

if you are trying to reach people then speak to them as people.but stop using the very vehicle they hold zero belief in,thats just a waste of time.

disagreements are fun but repetition is boring.you cant ask for a certain amount of patience and understanding and then not give it in return.

You can post on secular websites freely without issue, if you don't talk about Jesus. If you talk about the things the world loves, the world has no problem with that. If you talk about the things the world hates (Jesus) then the world will hate you for saying it.

Over 200 thousand Christians are martyred every year for their faith. The atheistic state in Soviet Russia killed at least 20 million Christians (probably a lot more) and the atheistic state in China has been persecuting Christians for over 50 years (and the governments before that for hundreds of years)

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

My first posts were short and small..since then I have simply been replying to what people have been saying to me and asking me about. Yes, I will continue to post scripture verses in answer to questions that people ask me about my beliefs, or to support my beliefs, or because I think they are relevant to the conversation, or for any other reason. I don't critique what you post so why are you critiquing me? Am I interested in all of the things that people post on the sift? Are you?

I wouldn't call a series of left-handed compliments defending someone. What it sounded like is that you support the idea of me being here, theoretically, but would prefer it wasn't me particularly.

Here is the end of the story: this is dags site and he has said many times that he thinks I belong here. Beyond that there is nothing else to say, unless you'd like to actually respond to my earlier reply about "progressing" and continue our conversation.

This isn't entirely true... intense religious views can been linked to trauma or malfunction of the Temporal Lobe. There might be some anti-seizure meds that can help. I'm not even joking.

Thank you, I was not going for "attack" but "explanation", I'm glad at least someone else saw it that way.

I would posit this question: Can one post on religious websites freely without issue if you don't talk about (or believe in) Jebus?
Answer: No, one will be lambasted and inundated with outrage for suggesting another point of view where it's not wanted. (it makes little difference which religion we're talking about).
Neither act is right, I just wish to point out that the intolerance is almost always coming FROM the religious side, not towards it. The religious are just hyper sensitive, never having had to defend their position before (because they effectively silenced all dissenting opinion(s)). The non-religious are hardened by centuries of oppression from the religious, so we don't complain about it as much, we expect it from a certain percentage and try to ignore them.
I feel you can post on secular websites freely without issue if you don't talk ONLY about Jebus.

What I don't understand, @newtboy, is why otherwise rational, logical, and intelligent atheists even bother trying to talk a religious person out of their views?

To me, that is irrational, illogical, and quite frankly unintelligent.

Who was it above who said you aren't going to argue strangers' out of their beliefs? Right on. So why do otherwise intelligent atheists come back to the well, over and over and over again?

Shiny ain't in this alone. It takes two to tango.

And. Y'all can do what you like. It's just pixels.

Here is a Christian website where you can talk about whatever you want:

http://www.christianforums.com/

There are some sections of the forum which are Christian only, but most are not. If the rule of the website was secular only, then I wouldn't post anything there. If it is anything goes, like the sift is, then I can talk about whatever I want to within reason.

You're also acting like no one brings up religion here. Go to the religion channel and you'll find hundreds of videos about it, most of them portraying it in a negative light. If the members of the sift are free to post videos and make comments against God and Christianity, then why aren't I, who am also a member, free to post videos and make comments supporting Christianity?

I grew up in a secular home without any religion. I wasn't persecuted by one Christian in my entire life. I realize some people grow up in religious homes and when they become atheists they get persecuted, but I just want to note that this isn't what Jesus taught them to do. I will join anyone in condemning that behavior. However, American culture is overwhelmingly secular. Our entertainment is secular, as well as our education system. I grew up without much of any exposure to Christianity, and I lived all over the country. So I think you are overrstating things, especially in America. You may say the same for me, but it's absolutely true that religious freedoms in America have been curtailed and dialogue about God has shunned from the national conversation. It's not as bad here as it is in other places but it could get that way pretty quickly.

As far as intolerance goes, I don't have a problem with you or anyone here. My most ardent critics are the ones usually on my heart the most often. I care about you guys and I hope the best for you. God bless.

Yummy, arguing on the internet!
I haven't done this in years, I'm gonna throw my hat in the Ring now.
I spent countless hours here for years, just enjoying the show. Staying out of all this, in the end at least, unimportant chatter. I came for the videos. Then somebody starts singing about sluts and I end up with an account. What can I say? I like sluts.
I spent much time reading and skipping over the posts of @shinyblurry here. And I still wonder why people feel the need to argue with him in such detail and length. He talks a lot about his faith in God and Jesus but what it come down to is this: He believes in The Bible.
The Bible features God and Jesus and all that but most important of all, it features a heckload of arguments for all kinds of things that are often in direct conflict.
Earlier in this thread, somebody threw a Bible quote about how rape victims have to marry their rapist in @shinyblurry's face and he actually started to explain (correct me if I misunderstood) how it's a punishment for the rapist that he has to pay money and marry the woman if the father chooses that.
I have money to burn. Is Jessica Alba married and where does her dad live? She's super hot and I *need* that kind of punishment. God wants her to fulfill her marital duties, right? If she's not available, I could make a list.
Now, I could argue this IMO rather distasteful idea with him, quoting the Bible back and forth, using other philosophical sources for arguments (I'm sure Hitchens mentioned rape somewhere sometime) but all that doesn't matter.
He believes in The Bible.
If I went back in time and edited early versions to my liking to include gems like "Every man shall also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed no abomination: they shall surely be praised", old shiny here would organize gay pride parades now. Because it's in the book. Whatever is in there, it's the truth. Whatever.
It's the same reason why creationist (I have no idea if old shiny is among them) can not accept evolution. It's not in the book.
They believe in this powerful, omnipotent god, not just in I-can-command-all-sea-animals-god. No, not that Aquaman shit the Greeks had, I'm talking about I-invented-the-universe-god. Get this, this guy did *invent* the universe. And still it was all some Siegfried and Roy BS we *know* to be nonsense. 7 days? Really? Was he in a hurry? Couldn't he wait until we get to the Game of Thrones and Tivo part of History? Was there another Earth to take care of? Contract work?
The idea to credit that dude for creating Evolution itself is too much to ask for these people. The idea that God created a giant machine (the universe) and allowed it to feature other tiny, tiny machines that repair, reproduce and improve themselves (life itself; evolution), is too mindblowing.
Who's more awesome in your book? The god that can do magic or the god who could do magic but opted for inventing everything science has discovered so far?
You know, science failed to disprove the existence of god. They can't do that yet. But they can disprove The Bible, at least parts. And yet, they still side with that darn book.
They don't care about God, the don't even care about Jesus. They care about what they read about them. They care about their perception of it.
Telling @shinyblurry that Jesus was a little, brown, jewish Hippie who got mixed up with existing mythology is like telling a fourteen year old that Ed Cullen is, by his own admission, a creepy murderer who stalks underage girls 80 years his junior. They don't want to hear it because that is not what the book said. They book didn't say that god created the natural laws of physics, chemistry and biology and set them upon the universe to wreak havoc until dinosaurs showed up. The book said it took 7 days. And ribs and dirt.
The Bible says so. Nothing else matters.
That's why it's pointless to argue scripture with him. The book is everything and allows so brilliantly for circular logic and cherry picking. It worked with slavery and how many are willing to argue nowadays in front of a TV camera for it? But gays are not slaves and women can always be picked on. Some wrong ideas are easier to conceal behind a book cover than others.
The Bible is everything to him, God and Jesus are just featured players. In the end they could be replaced by Donald Duck and Batman, they just weren't around back when they started to write it.
That doesn't mean I wouldn't love to hear your thoughts about the latest Daft Punk single, @shinyblurry. Or are you more into Rock music?

Ahhh, once again I'm misunderstood. My thought is that there's little to 0% chance of changing a zealot's mindset, but with rational intelligent argument one may stop other impressionable people from following in their footsteps.

So, it seems to make your point of Christian tollerance you show me a site all about Christianity including a part where non-Christian speak is absolutely not allowed. Hmmmm.? You don't see the issue there?
You are allowed to say whatever you like, and others are allowed to speak their mind about what you said. Where's the persecution? Being ignored is not persecution, neither is being disagreed with, and so far as I know no one banned you.
My experience was far different, growing up in the deep south as a non-Christian is a truly hard row to hoe, and a dangerous one. I also disagree that our entertainment or education system is secular, it may have pockets of secularism, but not an entirety by far. Consider how you would feel if your money had "there is no god" printed on it, it's an example of how our society caters to religion across the board.
As far as religious freedom's being curtailed, that's a good thing, religion has enjoyed a freedom from responsibility for it's actions for far too long, and needs to be curtailed before we live in the Christian equivelant of sharia law, like many Christians support and vote for.
I would continue this discussion, but you do not seem to be following the logic or even the truthful statements I am presenting. As I wrote previously, I do not expect to change your mind, I simply hope to offer a different point of view for the other readers of this exchange.
Not ignoring, but done replying.

Anyone should be able to post anything VS. Just don't expect it to receive upvotes or positive commentary.

My opinion is, is that the Sift is geared more atheist by consensus. That is it is somewhat of a belief trend. For better or worse.

I am fully on another spectrum of thought. I could not say I am agnostic or atheist or even that I believe in a thought process in line with some sort of God. I don't even know. I know I believe in something I just do not know how to fit it into human words because it is beyond human comprehension.

I just do not like when people try and act like what they believe is THE TRUTH. That goes for both spectrums. None of you know. But that is my opinion. What makes us interesting is that many have differing opinions and as we know it is also nice to have similar beliefs for camaraderie sake.

I don't listen to secular music anymore; I did use to listen to daft punk though. If you want to hear what I listen to now visit: http://www.elijahstreams.com/

I'm not going to comment on your commentary about me..if you want to engage me in a debate then select a topic. You spoke about many different subjects at the same time and I am not chasing all of those rabbits.

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

Even if they are duologues - I like long threads as long as they're civil. I enjoy reading them. Of course I'm coming from a community management perspective - and I see lot's of comments as a good thing.

Anyone should be able to post anything VS. Just don't expect it to receive upvotes or positive commentary.

People can say whatever they like about me; and they do. I don't expect anything I say or any videos I share to get votes and I am pleasantly surprised when they do.

My opinion is, is that the Sift is geared more atheist by consensus. That is it is somewhat of a belief trend. For better or worse.

I am fully on another spectrum of thought. I could not say I am agnostic or atheist or even that I believe in a thought process in line with some sort of God. I don't even know. I know I believe in something I just do not know how to fit it into human words because it is beyond human comprehension.

Seems like you could boil it down to a couple of simple questions: was I deliberately created, and if so, by whom and for what reason?

I just do not like when people try and act like what they believe is THE TRUTH. That goes for both spectrums. None of you know. But that is my opinion. What makes us interesting is that many have differing opinions and as we know it is also nice to have similar beliefs for camaraderie sake.

Bear with me here..you're saying you don't know what the truth is, and that's perfectly legitimate. It's when you take it a step further and say that no one else knows what it is either that I have a question. The question is, how do you know that? If you don't know the truth, how do you know whether someone else knows it or not? How would you recognize it if they did, not knowing what it is yourself?

There are two ways to know truth..either you are omnipotent, or an omnipotent being reveals the truth to you. I make the second claim, and I base it on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

All of this has happened before and all of it will happen again:

http://videosift.com/video/God-does-exist-Testimony-from-an-ex-atheist

of particular interest is the quote from shiny: "The only reason I am here on the sift is to provide an alternate viewpoint to the vast and endless void of unbelief that is currently blanketing the community here."

Just here to push a viewpoint. Not here to be a part of the community, not to enjoy videos and comment as the rest of us are. ONLY here to push a viewpoint. His words.

If I want to learn about the bible, I'll read it myself and consult actual experts on it. not go visit the shills and the obviously biased.

if someone logged onto here and were constantly selling some product or shilling their favorite book, they'd be banned instantly, but if that product is the bible, suddenly it's tolerated.

Get...him...out..of...here.

@VoodooV --- you would do better to implore Sifters to stop engaging with him. It ends quickly if no one attempts to "debate" him.

I see your point about "selling" -- but it isn't a great analogy. We are all here for our own purposes, those of us who comment regularly. We get something from the exchange, so we "profit" just as shiny profits from his attempts to save our souls.

Rather than trying to ban him, which I do NOT support, or trying to shut him up, why not take that energy and implore those who "debate" with him to just stop?

Shiny will either go away when he is ignored, or he will join us in loving a good kitty video. I would LOVE to bond with shiny over a kitty video.

What is the effective difference between an all out dis-engagement which is essentially a shunning vs him being removed from the community when it is known that he is here only to push a product? There is no difference except for one. If he sticks around,there is always going to be someone who falls for the trap and we get to go through this all again. I say remove the trap. There are plenty of other places on the internet to fall for shillery. This doesn't have to be one of them.

It's not about profiting. yes we all are here to "get something out of it" The difference is that shiny admits that he is selling something.

Are you selling something @bareboards2 ? Am I? Is it your sole mission on the sift to press a particular viewpoint? Or are you just a little bit more multi-faceted than that?

I think it's rather hypocritical to not allow spam bots and marketing shills on here, but when someone shills the bible...suddenly it's ok.

I appreciate what they're trying to do. This site has an obvious left slant, but this is a misguided attempt to artificially balance it out. Yes, I said artificially.
It's the same bullshit the media tries to pull by giving airtime to both sides in order to pretend to be "balanced" regardless of how much evidence one side has over the other.

If anything, the sift gives Shiny preferential treatment because of his beliefs. He's become the poster child of the religious viewpoint here and so it doesn't seem to matter how he conducts himself or how intellectually dishonest or fallacious he is. He gets a pass. He certainly knows how to play the victim. You devote your entire existence here on the sift to pushing any other message and I bet you'd probably get kicked out.

To play into the liberal stereotype that the conservatives have. I bet you anything if someone started posting constantly about how great Obama is to the same extent Shiny posts about God/religion, even on a left leaning site such as this they'd eventually get kicked out for spam. At the very least, even us godless liberals would get sick of it and would find such a sifter to be annoying and ignore them.

This is not about atheist vs religion, this is not left vs right. This is about people who contribute to the community in good faith and those that do not. It's about holding people's feet to the fire.

If nothing else, you have to admit there are people out there who can represent religion FAR better than Shiny ever could. So if the sift really feels they HAVE to have a designated, artificial, religious "representative" to balance us "out of control liberals" There are people out there far less disingenuous and not one trick ponies like Shiny.

Somebody just told me about this:

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/atheists-unite

The atheist community is gathering funds to help this woman rebuild. Reached their goal in 17 hours!

I bolded the part of your quote that I found most interesting, because my original comment, before I self-edited, was "Oh noes! Someone is wrong on the Internet! I must DO something." I was going to follow up with how I was just as guilty as most people on the Internet of falling into that trap.

I will not deny that "communication" is taking place in this thread, but my belief is that what's mostly being communicated is various posters' needs to show others how right they are (or how wrong their opponent is) which I find contributes little to the collective body of knowledge, and I don't foresee anything constructive coming out of that.

I like how you tried to steer the thread back on topic with the last part of your comment. I don't really see a "twisted media engine" as you put it at work. Rather I see a reflection of the cultural fact that Christianity still has a significant hold in America (what is it, like 75% of Americans polled identify as Christians?). I think maybe the reporter also made an over-generalization about the area too and just assumed everyone there is Christian. And to be honest, if he had asked that same question to a random sampling of 100 other survivors, don't you think the vast majority would have said "yes"?

And while all of this is going on, you're searching through your mind for something gracious and diplomatic you can say to bring the conversation to a close; and all I can ever come up with is, "BLOW IT OUT YOUR ASS, BLOW IT OUT YOUR ASS, BLOW IT OUT YOUR ASS, BLOW IT OUT YOUR ASS!" -George Carlin

....

Yes to the first paragraph quoted below. It would be hard to disagree that this is the result. My own bit was more about the reasons why *some* (not all, or even most) people might get involved in the discussion in the first place, regardless of what those comments actually became in the course of the exchange.

On the second quoted point, have to agree that I did use a bit of hyperbole there. Still, the lady skillfully avoided a direct answer to Wolf's question that was, in my judgement, highly irrelevant to the story. He then asked the question again, forcing the issue. Not normally a problem, except the question was in no way something that added to anything - until her answer trumped the entire interview.

I don't get how needing to know whether a person "thanked God" for not getting killed is worth the nation's time, and it seemed more a cub reporter's fumbling than a CNN's senior anchorperson performing an artful extraction of relevant story elements. Wolf didn't need to go there, and should not have.

Im right, you're wrong. END OF STORY!!

LALALALALALALALALALA

(i cant hear you)

LALALALALALALALALALA

God, this thread....It's rather mind-numbing-

"And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird (and Wolf)." Rev: 18:12, choggiphrased

Let this 134rth comment go down on record as another reiteration of the fact that CNN is nothing more than a programming organization, with so-called "news" as a facade for an agenda to render it' s viewers cognitively sterile through stultifyingly, surfeited horseshit.

More please Blitzor, on that mother who held her daughter like a kite by the hair to keep her in the bathtub??

You people sure do like your words, huh?

Looks like we got ourselves a bunch of faggoty readers!

Looks like I have some time on my hands....
Blergh, get that off me!
Look, Shiny, that post was not meant for you in the first place. It was *about* you, not *for* you. What I was trying to say, to tell others, was that you already made up your mind. And then you put it in a box, put that box in a safe, put that safe in a big ass wooden crate, poured concrete over it and threw it into the deepest pit of the ocean. Unless somebody's got a big red "S" on their shirt, the Hammer rule applies: Can't touch this!
You and me both know very much that my post is actually easy to reply to and contains a very definite core message concerning you and I know why you won't reply to it. Your way of arguing, from what I've seen, consists of very well known (at least to me) tactics like qouting small excerpts and single sentences, bogging down the discussion in details until your opponents grows tired and gives up. I used to do this all the time.
I also know that what I wrote about you (baseless assumption or not) isn't very nice. I realise how offensive it must be to you but I assure you, my intention is not to hurt your feelings, religious or otherwise. I may disagree greatly but I am not here to piss on your leg. I apologize for that even if I will continue to stand by my point.
Actually your response to my rather innocent question regarding musical taste proves it. "I don't listen to secular music anymore" is what you wrote. You divide music into secular and non-secular. That's your worldview right there. Non-secular vs. secular.
Not listening to secular music means you don't listen to The Beatles, John Williams, Jimi Hendrix, The Prodigy, Beastie Boys, Ennio Morricone, Queen, Cypress Hill, Deep Purple or Jesper Kyd. All great musicians. It may even include people like Mozart or Beethoven. Why? Because it's not religious enough?
Your worldview is seperates everything into two categories: secular and non-secular.
I pity you for that. You miss out on so many wonderful things.
Having said that, I must also tell you this: I am glad you're here.
There is this discussion going on in this thread about the rightness of the ignore function. I see no problem with that. @shinyblurry certainly posts many things that aren't popular here but as far as I can tell he always stays civil and quite cool, given the nature of responses he gets. I understand why some people don't want to discuss anything with him. I advise against discussing certain topics altogether, this is why I posted in this thread at all, however I must say I never saw him behaving in troublesome ways.
Assuming that this site is a place for open discussion about pretty much any topic, I think shiny's input has its place here. Putting him on ignore is not an act of ignorance or cowardice or however you want to characterise it, it is simply unwillingness to to argue with him. It is the realisation that this crate of his ist way beyond our reach, our touch.
I don't like people to tell me what I want to hear, I want people to tell me what they think. I belive shiny does.

"Your therapy period has expired-Please place 69 more credits into your account to resume your session. Thank You"

@JustSaying

Looks like I have some time on my hands....
Blergh, get that off me!
Look, Shiny, that post was not meant for you in the first place. It was *about* you, not *for* you.

I'm not sure how you could say that. It was both about me and for me. You obviously wanted me to read it ("@"shinyblurry), and you asked me a direct question at the bottom of it.

What I was trying to say, to tell others, was that you already made up your mind. And then you put it in a box, put that box in a safe, put that safe in a big ass wooden crate, poured concrete over it and threw it into the deepest pit of the ocean. Unless somebody's got a big red "S" on their shirt, the Hammer rule applies: Can't touch this!

Yes, I've made up my mind about God, and so would you, or anyone, if you were to receive personal revelation that He exists. You seem to think that isn't possible, but have you considered that it is impossible for you to know that? Why is it a virtue to you that one cannot come to any definite conclusions about truth? Is it an intellectually superior position to not know anything for certain?

You and me both know very much that my post is actually easy to reply to and contains a very definite core message concerning you and I know why you won't reply to it. Your way of arguing, from what I've seen, consists of very well known (at least to me) tactics like qouting small excerpts and single sentences, bogging down the discussion in details until your opponents grows tired and gives up. I used to do this all the time.

You asserted many things in your post which would require detailed refutations and it would be fairly time consuming to respond to all of it. That is why I asked you to narrow the field. I also don't have any tactics. I attempt to engage in an intellectually honest discussion and I wouldn't bother writing if it was for the purpose of winning an argument. I honestly don't care about winning the argument; I only hope to share something of value.

I also know that what I wrote about you (baseless assumption or not) isn't very nice. I realise how offensive it must be to you but I assure you, my intention is not to hurt your feelings, religious or otherwise. I may disagree greatly but I am not here to piss on your leg. I apologize for that even if I will continue to stand by my point.

That's okay; it's nothing I haven't heard before. I understand that posting on a website populated by atheists people are going to unload on me.

Actually your response to my rather innocent question regarding musical taste proves it. "I don't listen to secular music anymore" is what you wrote. You divide music into secular and non-secular. That's your worldview right there. Non-secular vs. secular.
Not listening to secular music means you don't listen to The Beatles, John Williams, Jimi Hendrix, The Prodigy, Beastie Boys, Ennio Morricone, Queen, Cypress Hill, Deep Purple or Jesper Kyd. All great musicians. It may even include people like Mozart or Beethoven. Why? Because it's not religious enough?
Your worldview is seperates everything into two categories: secular and non-secular.
I pity you for that. You miss out on so many wonderful things.

I haven't missed out on them; I wasn't always a Christian. I grew up in a secular home without religion and was saved later in life. I've tried what the world has to offer and I've rejected it. Or as the scripture explains, I am in the world but not of it. Jesus said you are either for Him or against Him; he who does not gather with Him, scatters abroad.

Having said that, I must also tell you this: I am glad you're here.
There is this discussion going on in this thread about the rightness of the ignore function. I see no problem with that. @shinyblurry certainly posts many things that aren't popular here but as far as I can tell he always stays civil and quite cool, given the nature of responses he gets. I understand why some people don't want to discuss anything with him. I advise against discussing certain topics altogether, this is why I posted in this thread at all, however I must say I never saw him behaving in troublesome ways.
Assuming that this site is a place for open discussion about pretty much any topic, I think shiny's input has its place here. Putting him on ignore is not an act of ignorance or cowardice or however you want to characterise it, it is simply unwillingness to to argue with him. It is the realisation that this crate of his ist way beyond our reach, our touch.
I don't like people to tell me what I want to hear, I want people to tell me what they think. I belive shiny does.

Thanks, I appreciate that. If people want to ignore me that is their choice, but this isn't anything new. The talk of banning and ignoring me started almost immediately after I arrived here. While this site is based on democratic ideals, some people only want that in a limited sense. By that I mean that some want to be free, for instance, to post anti-christian videos and express anti-christian opinions yet they are bitterly opposed to anyone posting about the contrary.