*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Thursday, April 19th, 2012 12:23pm PDT - promote requested by Boise_Lib.

Brilliant

The only thing so-called christians seem to be really concerned with is making more christians, and staying at the top of the food chain. Beyond that, everybody else is wrong, and should be forced to comply.

@ant downvoted, so you know it must be *quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Boise_Lib.

EXACTLY

>> ^Boise_Lib:

@ant downvoted, so you know it must be quality


I found the other corollary of @ant downvoting things is that they tend to hit the top 15. Weird isn't it!?

*screwyousifty

Invocations (promote) cannot be called by kceaton1 because kceaton1 is not privileged - sorry.

I got ya, @kceaton1
*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, April 19th, 2012 3:34pm PDT - promote requested by Boise_Lib.

80 percent of the country may claim to be Christian, but the real question is, how many of those are born again? I would be surprised if the number was even half of that. This pseudo-christ may have some points, but it's based on a faulty premise; that America is still a Christian nation. It was at one time, but no longer; it all started to change when Americans rebelled against biblical morality in the 60's and 70's. Before that, we had Christian values and a Christian culture. It wasn't perfect by any means; there were many problems. But on the main Americans were a moral people, and this was a wonderful country to grow up in. Now, after decades of secular indoctrination, the foundations have been ripped away and replaced with secular values and secular culture, and we see the fruit of that, in all areas of American life.

As far as helping people is concerned, Christians are by far the most charitible people in the country..who do you think is running all of those food banks and homeless shelters? Those making 49,000 or less gave 3 1/2 times more than secular citizens with the same income, donated twice as much of their time, were 57 percent more likely to help a homeless person and two thirds more likely to donate blood. Another interesting fact is if you compare two secular people..one raised in a religious household and one who is not, the one with a religious upbringing is twice as likely to donate money to charity.

Because religious and secular citizens tend to cluster together, you also have different parts of the country that are more charitible than others. For instance, arkansas is one of the most charitible states, whose citizens give around 3.9 percent of their income, versus the citizens of Massachusetts, who only give 1.8 percent of their income, which is one of the least charitible. Or that the citizens of South Dakota give away 75 percent more of their income than the citizens of San Francisco.

That still isn't really that significant for what we are commanded to do. Christ called us to a higher standard, one that is separated from the gross materialism of this age. I can agree with the criticism in that manner, but God intends to have Christians reach people in different ways. He gives all of us different gifts, but He intends for us to use those gifts for His purposes. It is okay for a Christian to have wealth, if He is using that wealth to do Gods will.

In any case, the church in general will certainly have a lot to answer for when Christ returns, but this commentary is not an accurate reflection of that. It's simply another anti-christian vehicle that atheists will all nod their head and agree with without any thoughtful analysis.

Jesus, maybe you should talk to your dad. You've been out of the loop for a while.

it all started to change when Americans rebelled against biblical morality in the 60's and 70's. Before that, we had Christian values and a Christian culture


The 50s were an aberration, not the norm for all time before the horrible 60s. This is a ridiculous untruth propagated by people who grew up in the 50s and who, in the US, are bitter about losing a cultural war. Much of the reason the 50s were so explicitly religious was because of government intervention - explicit religion was seen as a counter to communism. Other than that, it was a generational effect, you can see the cycle through history. In terms of overall morality, I'll take now - a time without slavery, less crime, and much more protection for the bullied in general - over pretty much any point in history.

I mean, there were certainly positives to the 1950s if you were a middle-to-upper-class white male but it really sucked for most other people.

As to now, the biggest immoral behavior I see the US doing right now is slaughtering people overseas. I'm waiting for the time when warmongering candidates can't get support in Tennessee because of all the Christians. Oh wait, it's not warmongering they hate, it's "differing slightly on religious views".

who do you think is running all of those food banks and homeless shelters?


And who is fighting hardest against universal healthcare, foodstamps, and progressive taxation? Most people (of any kind) are good and want to help the underprivileged; mostly they just differ on how to administer that aid.

For instance, arkansas is one of the most charitible states, whose citizens give around 3.9 percent of their income


According to this - http://www.forbes.com/2005/11/23/most-charitable-states-cx_lh_1125home_ls.html - the #1 state is Utah. Hmmm... I wonder why? Maybe it's because they're browbeaten by their church into donating? Too bad they're not Christians, eh Shiny, or you could take credit for them. On the whole, I think it's ridiculous to count donations to a Church as wholly charitable for this purpose. A donation to a church is partially going to support charitable stuff, but largely is going to support building a church, heating it, maintaining it, advertising it, supplying it, and paying people who work there (the same as a donation to Applebee's).

It's simply another anti-christian vehicle that atheists will all nod their head and agree with without any thoughtful analysis.


Speaking for myself, I made it about 10 seconds in before it annoyed me too much to keep watching. Annoying voice, cliche, stupid non-jokes.

if there had been a jesus, he naturally would not have been caucasian :-)

>> ^shinyblurry:
It's simply another anti-christian vehicle that atheists will all nod their head and agree with without any thoughtful analysis.


You know my feelings on the subject Shiny, but there's one thing I appreciate about this video: his rant about how the rich are not getting into heaven. I've heard all sorts of different interpretations and people trying to "translate out" their own beliefs in Matthew 19:24, but I just can't see it in any other way than: "If you have it, give it all away. You can't take it with you and we certainly aren't taking it into account when you get here."

Far from bashing Christians (and I know I'm ignorant where the bible is concerned), I agree with and support this particular idea. It frustrates me to know end when I hear people try to rationalize their selfish excess.

"You suck dicks" is NOT an insult, goddammit!!

>> ^hpqp:

"You suck dicks" is NOT an insult, goddammit!!


"You suck dicks," Shouldn't be an insult, but as things stand now it is.

I would also like to see this changed, but there is a whole lot of inertia behind it.

Shh, shh, let it happen.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^hpqp:
"You suck dicks" is NOT an insult, goddammit!!

"You suck dicks," Shouldn't be an insult, but as things stand now it is.
I would also like to see this changed, but there is a whole lot of inertia behind it.

I've heard all sorts of different interpretations and people trying to "translate out" their own beliefs in Matthew 19:24, but I just can't see it in any other way than: "If you have it, give it all away. You can't take it with you and we certainly aren't taking it into account when you get here."

I'm not sure what other interpretations you're referring to... but there's a very credible interpretation wherein the "eye of a needle" is one of the small, short gates into the city - mostly intended for people. In order for a camel carrying goods to enter in by this kind of gate, they'd have to kind of kneel and shuffle. Thus rich people have to either unload their goods, or be very penitent to get in (and the more goods they're importing into heaven, the lower they have to prostrate themselves).

Makes sense, would have made sense to people at the time, and otherwise the choice of camels and "eyes of needles" seems pretty arbitrary/nonsensical.

Here's a little article that discusses yours and another one. And I agree with them. I think Jesus was saying pretty bluntly: "It's fucking impossible for rich people to go to heaven... period."

@jmzero

And I agree with them. I think Jesus was saying pretty bluntly: "It's fucking impossible for rich people to go to heaven... period."


That site you link also clarifies that:

...and Homo neanderthalensis were simply racial variants of modern humans and, like all humans, were descended from Adam and Eve.


But despite the fact that these nutbars said it, it's true there's no historical evidence for the gate in question (or at least there wasn't last time I looked). However, there's lots of things about life at that time that we don't have any real evidence for, and the parable makes more sense (to me at least) interpreted that way.

It also doesn't jive well with the rest of the Bible for rich people to be unilaterally condemned - there's plenty of biblical people who receive riches as a reward for righteousness. That wouldn't be much of a reward if those riches dragged them down to Hell (haha, here's your stuff back Job, have fun in Hell!).

>> ^Fletch:
Jesus, maybe you should talk to your dad. You've been out of the loop for a while.


I think its against the rules to downvote comments you haven't read. Am I wrong?

>> ^Ryjkyj:
You know my feelings on the subject Shiny, but there's one thing I appreciate about this video: his rant about how the rich are not getting into heaven. I've heard all sorts of different interpretations and people trying to "translate out" their own beliefs in Matthew 19:24, but I just can't see it in any other way than: "If you have it, give it all away. You can't take it with you and we certainly aren't taking it into account when you get here."

Far from bashing Christians (and I know I'm ignorant where the bible is concerned), I agree with and support this particular idea. It frustrates me to know end when I hear people try to rationalize their selfish excess.

The idea of the rich rarely being saved is well supported by scripture. First, I think Jesus couldn't have been more clear about it in Matthew 19:23:

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven"

However, I do not believe this is a condemnation against having wealth in general. Rather, I think is a condemnation against those who use their riches for selfish gain and not for the greater good. This interpretation supported by James 5:1-6

Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days.

Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.

You have condemned and murdered the righteous person. He does not resist you.

It is condemning those rich who have lived in luxury and in self-indulgence, who have gained by cheating more righteous people of their just due. It even rises to the level of murder in Gods eyes, perhaps because of the impact of a poor person losing even a few days wages could be fatal.

This is illustrated even more plainly in the Parable of the Rich Fool

13Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.”

14Jesus replied, “Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?” 15Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.”

16And he told them this parable: “The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop. 17He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’

18“Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. 19And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’

20“But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’

21“This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God.”

God is condemning greed here, and this is something we can see is nigh universal with the rich. Too much is never enough for many of them. But what this is saying is that it is not money itself, it is the love of money that is the issue:

1 Timothy 6:9-10

But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil: which some reaching after have been led astray from the faith, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows

The love of money is a snare and a temptation to people. It is what you can call a false idol, because those who pursue riches cannot serve God:

Matthew 6:24

No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.


It comes down to what you love; God or the world, and whatever you love more, your heart will be in that:

Matthew 6:19-21

Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal

For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also

That's why Jesus posed these two questions:

Matthew 16:25-26

For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?

Steve Jobs is a good example of this. He had about as much money, power, celebrity and accomplishment as you could desire in this life. Yet, what good did his riches do him when it was his time to go? They couldn't keep him alive, and they couldn't insure his eternal future. In the grand scheme of things, they were nothing but a millstone around his neck.

So yes, I think there is clear evidence that scripture condemns the rich, but only the greedy and self-serving rich. Not those who use their wealth for the greater good and not for themselves.

>> ^jmzero:
The 50s were an aberration, not the norm for all time before the horrible 60s. This is a ridiculous untruth propagated by people who grew up in the 50s and who, in the US, are bitter about losing a cultural war. Much of the reason the 50s were so explicitly religious was because of government intervention - explicit religion was seen as a counter to communism. Other than that, it was a generational effect, you can see the cycle through history. In terms of overall morality, I'll take now - a time without slavery, less crime, and much more protection for the bullied in general - over pretty much any point in history.

This isn't entirely true. Yes, the late 40s and 50s were aberrations in the 20th century, mostly because of world war 2. America considered WW2 to be a moral war, perhaps the greatest example of the paradigm of good versus evil in our history, and biblical morality was at an all time high. However, Christian theism has always been the dominant worldview of American intellectuals until secular humanism started to dominate around the 1930s. If not for the war the culture may have changed earlier, but in general it has been a Christian nation with Christian values.

>> ^jmzero:
I mean, there were certainly positives to the 1950s if you were a middle-to-upper-class white male but it really sucked for most other people.

I think the society was quite a bit better, and safer for most. Crime was much less than it is now, cost of living was lower, standard of living was rising, etc. Yes, there was racism and the like, but it's not like we've gotten rid of that either.

>> ^jmzero:
As to now, the biggest immoral behavior I see the US doing right now is slaughtering people overseas. I'm waiting for the time when warmongering candidates can't get support in Tennessee because of all the Christians. Oh wait, it's not warmongering they hate, it's "differing slightly on religious views".

I agree, many Christian voters are voting on superficial issues and not on whether the candidate is meeting biblical standards.

>> ^jmzero:
And who is fighting hardest against universal healthcare, foodstamps, and progressive taxation? Most people (of any kind) are good and want to help the underprivileged; mostly they just differ on how to administer that aid.

Conservatives are, and not all Christians are conservatives. Jesus taught both conservative and liberal principles, but both sides want to claim Him for themselves. I think most people want to help the poor, but most people aren't doing anything about it unfortunately.

>> ^jmzero:
According to this - http://www.forbes.com/2005/11/23/most-charitable-states-cx_lh_1125home_ls.html - the #1 state is Utah. Hmmm... I wonder why? Maybe it's because they're browbeaten by their church into donating? Too bad they're not Christians, eh Shiny, or you could take credit for them. On the whole, I think it's ridiculous to count donations to a Church as wholly charitable for this purpose. A donation to a church is partially going to support charitable stuff, but largely is going to support building a church, heating it, maintaining it, advertising it, supplying it, and paying people who work there (the same as a donation to Applebee's).

Well, supporting the church also supports all of these local programs and ministries, such as food banks and homeless shelters, so I think it all pans out. As far as mormons go, they aren't Christian for the same reason muslims aren't Christian; they both teach another God apart from the God of the bible.

>> ^jmzero:
Speaking for myself, I made it about 10 seconds in before it annoyed me too much to keep watching. Annoying voice, cliche, stupid non-jokes.

I made it all the way through somehow. It hurt me deep inside.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^Fletch:
Jesus, maybe you should talk to your dad. You've been out of the loop for a while.

I think its against the rules to downvote comments you haven't read. Am I wrong?


Who says I don't read them? I'm always up for a laugh.

That said, I haven't seen a single comment you've ever made that wasn't SPAM. As a charter, I don't want to see ads, and I long ago tired of your incessant, blathering sales pitch. Quite frankly, someone as condescending, self-righteous, arrogant, ignorant, and obnoxious as yourself is not going to win any converts, and I think you know that. Which means your continued infection of VS must be ego-driven, a false sense that you are doing "good" in your tiny little universe. Then again, the ability to lie to oneself is fundamental to buying into the whole magic-man-in-the-sky thing, so maybe you can't/refuse to understand how most of us perceive you.

When I was a child, I remember running upstairs one Christmas morning and telling my parents that I not only saw Santa last night, but I TALKED to him as well. I related our entire conversation of cookies and reindeer, how I helped him carry the 4-man toboggan that now leaned against the fireplace, and how he gave our dog, Missy, a Milk-bone. I knew I was lying, but who would ever suspect? Santa is real, right? And he's magic. Everyone knows that. I wasn't lying about Santa. He was real to me, as he must be real to everyone. Just a small fib about our interaction that no mere muggle could challenge. I was a star. I TALKED to Santa! Company would come over, and my parents would have me relate my tale to them. They ate it up.

To me, you are the me who saw Santa, a pathetic nincompoop who feels solace in the fact that science can't prove a negative (it doesn't work that way), AND you're trying to sell me microwave popcorn and beefsticks, AND you won't quit ringing my doorbell.

Amen. Hallelujah.
>> ^Fletch:

>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^Fletch:
Jesus, maybe you should talk to your dad. You've been out of the loop for a while.

I think its against the rules to downvote comments you haven't read. Am I wrong?

Who says I don't read them? I'm always up for a laugh.
That said, I haven't seen a single comment you've ever made that wasn't SPAM. As a charter, I don't want to see ads, and I long ago tired of your incessant, blathering sales pitch. Quite frankly, someone as condescending, self-righteous, arrogant, ignorant, and obnoxious as yourself is not going to win any converts, and I think you know that. Which means your continued infection of VS must be ego-driven, a false sense that you are doing "good" in your tiny little universe. Then again, the ability to lie to oneself is fundamental to buying into the whole magic-man-in-the-sky thing, so maybe you can't/refuse to understand how most of us perceive you.
When I was a child, I remember running upstairs one Christmas morning and telling my parents that I not only saw Santa last night, but I TALKED to him as well. I related our entire conversation of cookies and reindeer, how I helped him carry the 4-man toboggan that now leaned against the fireplace, and how he gave our dog, Missy, a Milk-bone. I knew I was lying, but who would ever suspect? Santa is real, right? And he's magic. Everyone knows that. I wasn't lying about Santa. He was real to me, as he must be real to everyone. Just a small fib about our interaction that no mere muggle could challenge. I was a star. I TALKED to Santa! Company would come over, and my parents would have me relate my tale to them. They ate it up.
To me, you are the me who saw Santa, a pathetic nincompoop who feels solace in the fact that science can't prove a negative (it doesn't work that way), AND you're trying to sell me microwave popcorn and beefsticks, AND you won't quit ringing my doorbell.

@Fletch here is a special comment for you, but more specifically as Jesus would say it:

Fuck yeah, hallelujah, praise... ME. @Fletch my son you fucking rule, I'm SO fucking tired of this nonsensical talking bullshit. They, literally in ten minutes, put out more vomitous of shit than I spoke parables, metaphors, truth, and wisdom in a lifetime! It's fucking ridiculous! Just use the back door when you come up, use the secret password: "Kolob."! I love that password almost everyone gets it wrong, it's fantastic. Anyway, you got it!?

Alright got to go my fucking cell phone is going off at fucking 7:00 A.M.! I hate this spam shit they will all rot in a layer of hell full of bugs that just won't leave them the fuck alone. Not forever, just till they fucking GET IT!

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, April 19th, 2012 7:51pm PDT - promote requested by eric3579.

Well, wait... what kind of dicks are we talking about?
>> ^hpqp:

"You suck dicks" is NOT an insult, goddammit!!

I doubt I'm not the first person to say this, but Jesus may have a point there.

I made it all the way through somehow. It hurt me deep inside.


I appreciated your reply, and your "fate of the rich" comment, @shinyblurry. Clearly we don't agree on lots of stuff (and I was, true to character, angry in my initial response) but I understand your perspective on the political bits and am inclined to agree with your interpretation on the religious ones (whatever we disagree in terms of cosmic reality, I think we agree that Jesus had a worthwhile philosophy that's worth understanding). And we also agree that this video was really grating, so there's that too .

>> ^Fletch:
Who says I don't read them? I'm always up for a laugh.

You say you don't read them. You've gone out of your way to tell me you don't read them. Now suddenly you're reading them again?

>> ^Fletch:
That said, I haven't seen a single comment you've ever made that wasn't SPAM. As a charter, I don't want to see ads, and I long ago tired of your incessant, blathering sales pitch. Quite frankly, someone as condescending, self-righteous, arrogant, ignorant, and obnoxious as yourself is not going to win any converts, and I think you know that. Which means your continued infection of VS must be ego-driven, a false sense that you are doing "good" in your tiny little universe. Then again, the ability to lie to oneself is fundamental to buying into the whole magic-man-in-the-sky thing, so maybe you can't/refuse to understand how most of us perceive you.

Many people on this site, including you, are antitheists; I know exactly how you feel about me, not withstanding, what it says in scripture:

1 Corinthians 1:18

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

I never expected to be welcomed into a community made up of atheists, agnostics and antitheists. However, there are a few that have crossed lines and been friendly with me, although they talk to me in private because of the massive social stigma against talking to me that people like yourself have perpetuated. I would also note that dag has always been welcoming and fair with me, and he has said a few times that he appreciates my contributions here. I've tried to participate more in the community, but since people always downvote all of my comments and videos, I just participate in the topics that interest me and try to find good conversation.

>> ^Fletch:
When I was a child, I remember running upstairs one Christmas morning and telling my parents that I not only saw Santa last night, but I TALKED to him as well. I related our entire conversation of cookies and reindeer, how I helped him carry the 4-man toboggan that now leaned against the fireplace, and how he gave our dog, Missy, a Milk-bone. I knew I was lying, but who would ever suspect? Santa is real, right? And he's magic. Everyone knows that. I wasn't lying about Santa. He was real to me, as he must be real to everyone. Just a small fib about our interaction that no mere muggle could challenge. I was a star. I TALKED to Santa! Company would come over, and my parents would have me relate my tale to them. They ate it up.

To me, you are the me who saw Santa, a pathetic nincompoop who feels solace in the fact that science can't prove a negative (it doesn't work that way), AND you're trying to sell me microwave popcorn and beefsticks, AND you won't quit ringing my doorbell.

Anyone can prove a negative. For instance, there are no muslim senators. You can check it out there:

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

You could disprove the idea of God if it were logically inconsistant. I challenge you to come up with an argument.

You think I am here for me, but I am not. I am here because of Jesus, and because of you. I care about you enough to take all of your insults and condescension so I can have a chance to tell you how much God loves you. My only motive here, and in everything else in my life, is to serve the will of God. I haven't always done that, but in any case, it's not about me; my life is not my own; it belongs to Him.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^Fletch:
Who says I don't read them? I'm always up for a laugh.
You say you don't read them. You've gone out of your way to tell me you don't read them. Now suddenly you're reading them again?
>> ^Fletch:
That said, I haven't seen a single comment you've ever made that wasn't SPAM. As a charter, I don't want to see ads, and I long ago tired of your incessant, blathering sales pitch. Quite frankly, someone as condescending, self-righteous, arrogant, ignorant, and obnoxious as yourself is not going to win any converts, and I think you know that. Which means your continued infection of VS must be ego-driven, a false sense that you are doing "good" in your tiny little universe. Then again, the ability to lie to oneself is fundamental to buying into the whole magic-man-in-the-sky thing, so maybe you can't/refuse to understand how most of us perceive you.
Many people on this site, including you, are antitheists; I know exactly how you feel about me, not withstanding, what it says in scripture:
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
I never expected to be welcomed into a community made up of atheists, agnostics and antitheists. However, there are a few that have crossed lines and been friendly with me, although they talk to me in private because of the massive social stigma against talking to me that people like yourself have perpetuated. I would also note that dag has always been welcoming and fair with me, and he has said a few times that he appreciates my contributions here. I've tried to participate more in the community, but since people always downvote all of my comments and videos, I just participate in the topics that interest me and try to find good conversation.
>> ^Fletch:
When I was a child, I remember running upstairs one Christmas morning and telling my parents that I not only saw Santa last night, but I TALKED to him as well. I related our entire conversation of cookies and reindeer, how I helped him carry the 4-man toboggan that now leaned against the fireplace, and how he gave our dog, Missy, a Milk-bone. I knew I was lying, but who would ever suspect? Santa is real, right? And he's magic. Everyone knows that. I wasn't lying about Santa. He was real to me, as he must be real to everyone. Just a small fib about our interaction that no mere muggle could challenge. I was a star. I TALKED to Santa! Company would come over, and my parents would have me relate my tale to them. They ate it up.
To me, you are the me who saw Santa, a pathetic nincompoop who feels solace in the fact that science can't prove a negative (it doesn't work that way), AND you're trying to sell me microwave popcorn and beefsticks, AND you won't quit ringing my doorbell.
Anyone can prove a negative. For instance, there are no muslim senators. You can check it out there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_affiliation_in_the_United
_States_Senate
You could disprove the idea of God if it were logically inconsistant. I challenge you to come up with an argument.
You think I am here for me, but I am not. I am here because of Jesus, and because of you. I care about you enough to take all of your insults and condescension so I can have a chance to tell you how much God loves you. My only motive here, and in everything else in my life, is to serve the will of God. I haven't always done that, but in any case, it's not about me; my life is not my own; it belongs to Him.


TL;DR

*doublepromote

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Saturday, April 21st, 2012 9:46am PDT - doublepromote requested by Fletch.

>> ^shinyblurry:

So yes, I think there is clear evidence that scripture condemns the rich, but only the greedy and self-serving rich. Not those who use their wealth for the greater good and not for themselves.


That really feels like the point to me. It could be argued that most of the scripture says it's OK to be rich as long as you are also godly. And I think THAT's what people really use as an excuse, while they brush aside the fact that Jesus repeatedly tells people to give their wealth away. Which a truly godly person would do without thinking. And not just 15% so they can feel good.

I don't need an argument to disprove god because no one has ever come up with a rigorous argument and evidence to prove he exists in the first place...

For instance, if I claimed the flying spaghetti monster was the ultimate deity in the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster), you would feel absolutely no need to seriously debate the point because, to you, it would be sheer nonsense. The same if I claimed the force existed, or worshipped ancient Norse or Greek gods. You would dismiss it out of hand because you believe something to the exclusion of everything else.

Similarly, an ancient book and a crowd of gullible people willing to believe it aren't enough evidence to get me to bother to waste my time disproving it.

As for the rambling diatribe after where you climb up on your cross and proclaim your humbleness for everyone to see, you have more in common with the pharisees than you may wish to admit. They also proclaimed loudly and proudly about all their good works no? Jesus didn't have much kind to say about those hypocrites, I doubt he'd feel any better (if he exists) about your intolerant proselytising...


>> ^shinyblurry:
You could disprove the idea of God if it were logically inconsistant. I challenge you to come up with an argument.
You think I am here for me, but I am not. I am here because of Jesus, and because of you. I care about you enough to take all of your insults and condescension so I can have a chance to tell you how much God loves you. My only motive here, and in everything else in my life, is to serve the will of God. I haven't always done that, but in any case, it's not about me; my life is not my own; it belongs to Him.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
That really feels like the point to me. It could be argued that most of the scripture says it's OK to be rich as long as you are also godly. And I think THAT's what people really use as an excuse, while they brush aside the fact that Jesus repeatedly tells people to give their wealth away. Which a truly godly person would do without thinking. And not just 15% so they can feel good.

If you love the Lord and know that your providence is from Him, then I really don't see how you could sit on your wealth and not want to do things like, help the poor, house the homeless, dig water wells in Africa, etc. You should naturally want to do those things, and you would know that the Lord gave you the things you have so you could use them to benefit others. Scripture is clear that everything on the Earth belongs to the Father, and that no one can receive even one thing if it hasn't been given to him from above. I don't think a rich person who doesn't use His money to serve others could love God. It's okay to have nice things and everything, so long as you aren't putting them before the Lord:

1 John 2:15

Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.

>> ^jmzero:
I appreciated your reply, and your "fate of the rich" comment, @shinyblurry. Clearly we don't agree on lots of stuff (and I was, true to character, angry in my initial response) but I understand your perspective on the political bits and am inclined to agree with your interpretation on the religious ones (whatever we disagree in terms of cosmic reality, I think we agree that Jesus had a worthwhile philosophy that's worth understanding). And we also agree that this video was really grating, so there's that too .

Thanks, I am glad we can agree on something, especially if it is Jesus. I'm glad you can see something worthwhile in what He has taught us. Even when I was agnostic I recognized a deeper wisdom in His words that I hadn't seen anywhere else. I suspect we have more areas of agreement about it, but of course we are looking at the world through very different glasses. I'm interested to hear what your particular prescription is, if you feel like sharing that some time.

As far as anger goes, don't sweat it. I've been guilty of being fairly reactive as well, and I apologize for that. This medium does not always lend itself well to civil discourse, and without being able to read facial expressions and body language, misinterpretations are inevitable. It is also an issue that tugs at your heart strings, because it touches everything about who you are as a person. It goes straight to the core of a persons belief system. That can be a sensitive area for many.

And yes, this video is obnoxious, but somehow something good came out of it.

>> ^Asmo:
I don't need an argument to disprove god because no one has ever come up with a rigorous argument and evidence to prove he exists in the first place...

It's not that you don't need one, it's that there aren't any. There are plenty of logical arguments for the existence of God, and evidence that He created the Universe. If you're like every other atheist, you will dismiss them all out of hand and demand a video tape.

In the end, no one can prove Gods existence to you. The truth is, only God can reveal Himself to you. He told us how to find Him, but you have to want to find Him. If you actually wanted to know the truth, you would find Him. He is knocking on your door, the question is whether you will you let Him in.

>> ^Asmo:
For instance, if I claimed the flying spaghetti monster was the ultimate deity in the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster), you would feel absolutely no need to seriously debate the point because, to you, it would be sheer nonsense. The same if I claimed the force existed, or worshipped ancient Norse or Greek gods. You would dismiss it out of hand because you believe something to the exclusion of everything else.

I would certainly claim that pulling a deity out of your hat is nonsense. I didn't pull Jesus Christ out of a hat; He is a real person, who claimed He is Gods only Son, which God proved by raising Him from the dead.

>> ^Asmo:
Similarly, an ancient book and a crowd of gullible people willing to believe it aren't enough evidence to get me to bother to waste my time disproving it.

Have you ever read the bible?

>> ^Asmo:
As for the rambling diatribe after where you climb up on your cross and proclaim your humbleness for everyone to see, you have more in common with the pharisees than you may wish to admit. They also proclaimed loudly and proudly about all their good works no? Jesus didn't have much kind to say about those hypocrites, I doubt he'd feel any better (if he exists) about your intolerant proselytising...


I was simply responding to fletch, who was questioning my motives, and I gave an honest answer. It wasn't an effort to earn some kind of personal acclaim, as if any would be given. All I expected from it was personal attacks. As far as preaching the word goes, that is what He commanded me to do. Neither did Jesus pull any punches as to what the truth is, and He specifically warned us not to do that. When you compromise truth, it is no longer truth.

>> ^shinyblurry:


It's not that you don't need one, it's that there aren't any.

How wonderfully arrogant. You refuse to accept something ergo it doesn't exist...

>> ^shinyblurry:

There are plenty of logical arguments for the existence of God, and evidence that He created the Universe.

No, there aren't, and no, there isn't.

There is conjecture and hypothesis predicated on belief. In the absence of belief, the "evidence" ceases to function.

>> ^shinyblurry:
I would certainly claim that pulling a deity out of your hat is nonsense. I didn't pull Jesus Christ out of a hat; He is a real person, who claimed He is Gods only Son, which God proved by raising Him from the dead.

He might have been a real person (much like Hercules/Herakles might have been a real person), but the miracles attributed to him remain unproved.

>> ^shinyblurry:


Have you ever read the bible?


Yes. I particularly enjoyed the part where god commanded the israelites to commit genocide or where Lot fucked his daughters (you'd think god would have seen that coming and made him leave behind his daughters in S&G cos they were nasty..) It has been venerated for so long that few actually think to question it, and then of course everyone interprets it according to their own beliefs anyway, and ignores the bits they don't want to take notice of (the point of the video above).

I've also read texts from many other religions. I think the buddhists come closest to the mark.

"The Buddha said that no one should simply believe what he said, but we should all think for ourselves and discover the truth through analytical meditation."

I don't subscribe to their religious views but I like how they think.

>> ^Asmo:
How wonderfully arrogant. You refuse to accept something ergo it doesn't exist...

I've yet to see one..that's why I invited you to come up with one. You say you don't have to, and I say, you don't have one. If you did you would have used it already.

>> ^Asmo:
No, there aren't, and no, there isn't.

"How wonderfully arrogant. You refuse to accept something ergo it doesn't exist..."

>> ^Asmo:
There is conjecture and hypothesis predicated on belief. In the absence of belief, the "evidence" ceases to function.

The Universe from nothing - logical absurdity

abiogenesis and macro evolution - conjecture and hypothesis predicated on belief

The atheist answer "we don't know, and we're working on it, but you're still wrong"

The theory of God has explanatory power, and is a better explanation for the evidence, such as fine tuning in the Universe, and information in DNA. Scientists cannot explain why the Universe appears fine-tuned for life, so they postulate that we there are multiple universes, and we just happen to be in the one that looks designed. The problem with that theory, besides the complete lack of evidence, is that it violates occams razor by multiplying entities unnecessarily. "I don't know" is not an answer, or a reason to reject a better theory.

>> ^Asmo:
He might have been a real person (much like Hercules/Herakles might have been a real person), but the miracles attributed to him remain unproved.

There is powerful evidence for the resurrection, even that skeptical bible scholars accept. The empty tomb is not as easily written off as many atheists who have never studied the matter imagine. My entire contention is that you can test the claim by asking Jesus to come into your life. It is not a matter of me proving it to you, it is a matter of God revealing Himself to you. He will give you the undeniable evidence that you're looking for. This isn't a game..God loves you and wants you to know Him. All you need to do is ask Him to come into your life and He will do it.

>> ^Asmo:
Yes. I particularly enjoyed the part where god commanded the israelites to commit genocide or where Lot fucked his daughters (you'd think god would have seen that coming and made him leave behind his daughters in S&G cos they were nasty..) It has been venerated for so long that few actually think to question it, and then of course everyone interprets it according to their own beliefs anyway, and ignores the bits they don't want to take notice of (the point of the video above).

You say you've read the bible and this is what you got out of it? Or is it that you've read infidels.org? Are you honestly telling me this is what you've gotten out of your reading of the bible? Even Richard Dawkins respects the bible as a work of literature and historical resource.

>> ^Asmo:
I've also read texts from many other religions. I think the buddhists come closest to the mark.

"The Buddha said that no one should simply believe what he said, but we should all think for ourselves and discover the truth through analytical meditation."

I don't subscribe to their religious views but I like how they think.

Scripture tells us to discern all things. It's not a matter of blindly believing something, as you seem to be implying. If that was all it was, I wouldn't believe it either. It is because of the correspondence to reality, and the undeniable evidence I have received, that I believe it.

"The Universe from nothing - logical absurdity"-@shinyblurry

Since I only nitpick and I don't plan to really read a response or comment again I'll say just this:

Look up something called the "quantum foam" or "quantum spacetime". Virtual particles, zipping in and out of reality annihilating each other with extreme amounts of energy that we can barely even notice, yet there it is--literally nothing. The math side of things yells, nay, screams at us that it's there. But, they've barely yet scratched the surface of this frontier, until...

About four or five months ago (if you look on my blog I had a post about it) they literally pulled a photon from nothing! You may wish to slightly rephrase your terminology or concede that "virtual" and nothing (in this Universe anyway) are not somehow perhaps connected. Thus negating your statement as they did indeed pull a photon from essentially nothing. It could also be that the terminology of "nothing" is not an exact definition in nature, it being purely an idealogical one.

It may be, not saying it is, but just something interesting to look at and think about. BUT, I know you... ...'This does not mean this so that can not mean that so thus the Bible is correct'... Keep working it that way, it has worked so well for you on here so far. Don't try another path!

Drunk Jesus Explains The Reason for The Season has been added as a related post - related requested by Barseps on that post.