There is such a thing as taking a stand. Sometimes, when humans are pushed beyond what they think is acceptable, they are willing to risk terrible consequences.

Rosa Parks did it with racism. How many poor 'negros' got slaughtered, beaten ...god knows what the trickle down effect would be... in the aftermath of ANY bold defiance by their brethren at the time? So then should we prefer the status quo? Should Rosa Parks also take a dum dum to the nuts because of she didn't tow the government line?

I think Assange is/was doing the world a great service, though we may not know it yet and we may never if we don't come out of this dark age. At some point, someone had to make a stand against this all-pervading government corruption. If he is a rapist, then he should be brought to justice - but how can you trust law/court justice when the law/court is effectively an involved party?>> ^thumpa28:

Assange is a self obsessed rapist (believe it or not that what they call people who have sex where the other party refuses or withdraws consent) whose lust for publicity has led to lots of death. The 1300 in Kenya by his own admission and the Taleban thanking wikileaks for helping them identify those who cooperated with the americans and what about an Iranian spy to name but a few we know about. Chinese dissidents, middle eastern journalists, people fighting for democracy in dangerous places have suffered because of this self serving turd.
How many people have suffered and died so Assange could lap up the publicity, shouting about the freedom of speech whilst gagging his own staff and of course planning to stiff the morons who looked after him whilst he was fighting extradition and especially those who posted bail. Everything out of his mouth is designed to keep Assange safe, by playing on the Great Satan angle and finding those fools idiotic enough to lap it up and throw money at the cause, especially those who posted bail for him, then left looking like right twats when he did a runner to the Ecuadorians. What a bunch of muppets.
Quite frankly, after all this nonsense the US wont bother to try and extradite him. I just hope the UK grabs him when he steps outside the one place the fucker can hide, preferably using a dum dum round to the nuts, before dragging his pathetic self off and slamming him into jail where he will face trial for being self obsessed, even during sex.
>> ^Hybrid:
You think this isn't about getting him extradited to the US via Sweden? That's one thing I and nearly everyone else in this thread do agree on. Be in no doubt, if Assange ends up on Swedish soil, he will end up on US soil soon after.>> ^Babymech:
Hybrid, don't be ridiculous. It would be illegal for Sweden to extradite him to the US. It would be political suicide for any Swedish politician or authority to be anywhere near involved an extradition to a country that practices the death penalty. Barbarians.

Assange is a self obsessed rapist (believe it or not that what they call people who have sex where the other party refuses or withdraws consent) whose lust for publicity has led to lots of death. The 1300 in Kenya by his own admission and the Taleban thanking wikileaks for helping them identify those who cooperated with the americans and what about an Iranian spy to name but a few we know about. Chinese dissidents, middle eastern journalists, people fighting for democracy in dangerous places have suffered because of this self serving turd.

How many people have suffered and died so Assange could lap up the publicity, shouting about the freedom of speech whilst gagging his own staff and of course planning to stiff the morons who looked after him whilst he was fighting extradition and especially those who posted bail. Everything out of his mouth is designed to keep Assange safe, by playing on the Great Satan angle and finding those fools idiotic enough to lap it up and throw money at the cause, especially those who posted bail for him, then left looking like right twats when he did a runner to the Ecuadorians. What a bunch of muppets.

Quite frankly, after all this nonsense the US wont bother to try and extradite him. I just hope the UK grabs him when he steps outside the one place the fucker can hide, preferably using a dum dum round to the nuts, before dragging his pathetic self off and slamming him into jail where he will face trial for being self obsessed, even during sex.

>> ^Hybrid:

You think this isn't about getting him extradited to the US via Sweden? That's one thing I and nearly everyone else in this thread do agree on. Be in no doubt, if Assange ends up on Swedish soil, he will end up on US soil soon after.>> ^Babymech:
Hybrid, don't be ridiculous. It would be illegal for Sweden to extradite him to the US. It would be political suicide for any Swedish politician or authority to be anywhere near involved an extradition to a country that practices the death penalty. Barbarians.

Thank you Issy! I've been looking for a good recipe for papaya salad. The one thing my wife brought back with her from Thailand is a lust for papaya salad that's so spicy that I can't let it touch my lips when I eat it, or it creates visible burn marks. She'll be very happy if I can make a decent one.

Everyone I've ever dated or married always looked at other girls and guys and commented on their fuckability in fact, lust-watch developed into a favored pastime in all of my relationships.
There are indicators available to humans of another human's libido still having legs under it and the impulse to keep humanity from further repression should be part of any healthy survivor's MO.

>> ^Sagemind:

Satan or Samel, was never described as homosexual. He was a fallen angel that wanted to enjoy the carnal pleasures of the flesh.

"Lilith met Samel when he found her lamenting her wrongs in loneliness. He was already burning with lust and envy after witnessing the pleasures of Adam and Eve. Lilith agreed to join with Samel and she became his wife; gaining the title of Queen of succubi. From there, they agreed to plot against Jehovah, Lilith for revenge and Samel to gain the pleasures of the flesh. It was through these plots that it was decided how to tempt Eve and then Adam by giving them the fruit. Once they had given into the temptation, Samel was able to enter their bodies forever and live as sin, in the hearts of man. It was through the offspring of Adam and Eve that Samel gave bodies to his minions of degenerate angels."
>> ^Jinx:
>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
Just where does this dumbass think homosexuals come from?

The original homosexual, Satan, corrupted the minds of the young and tricked them into thinking they could love another of the same sex. If you put all the gays away someplace then they can't turn our children gay! or something.
But lets be fair here. He doesn't want to kill the gays, he just points out they can't reproduce if you imprison them for life for being homosexual. Thats a big distinction between him and Hitler. Yeah. Plus Hitler was an atheist ofc, this guy is on GODS side.


You thought I was serious? cute.

Satan or Samel, was never described as homosexual. He was a fallen angel that wanted to enjoy the carnal pleasures of the flesh.


"Lilith met Samel when he found her lamenting her wrongs in loneliness. He was already burning with lust and envy after witnessing the pleasures of Adam and Eve. Lilith agreed to join with Samel and she became his wife; gaining the title of Queen of succubi. From there, they agreed to plot against Jehovah, Lilith for revenge and Samel to gain the pleasures of the flesh. It was through these plots that it was decided how to tempt Eve and then Adam by giving them the fruit. Once they had given into the temptation, Samel was able to enter their bodies forever and live as sin, in the hearts of man. It was through the offspring of Adam and Eve that Samel gave bodies to his minions of degenerate angels."

>> ^Jinx:

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
Just where does this dumbass think homosexuals come from?

The original homosexual, Satan, corrupted the minds of the young and tricked them into thinking they could love another of the same sex. If you put all the gays away someplace then they can't turn our children gay! or something.
But lets be fair here. He doesn't want to kill the gays, he just points out they can't reproduce if you imprison them for life for being homosexual. Thats a big distinction between him and Hitler. Yeah. Plus Hitler was an atheist ofc, this guy is on GODS side.

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^A10anis:
>> ^spoco2:
That just makes me happy:
Dick who bought a lambo in the first place
Dick who thinks it's appropriate to give it some pedal going round a corner to show off why he spent so much money on a CAR
Dick smashes into other cars, causes no injuries, just VERY expensive damage to his car, and to others which he'll have to pay for.
Bravo sir, you've made me quite, quite happy.

Bravo Sir; Your comments clearly demonstrate that you are just a sad, jealous, guy. Let me guess your response; "I have the money to buy a lamborghini but don't want to look a dick." Yeah, sure. Here is a quote that may help you; "jealousy is the tribute those who haven't, pay to those who have."

Really? You're going to try to justify people who spend the price of a house on a car, and then have no idea how to drive it? That's the line you're going to take? Because it's pretty indefensible.
I'm never going to say "I have the money to buy a Lamborghini". I seriously doubt I'll ever have that much disposable cash. If I did have huge sums of cash, I would quite like to have a nice car, sure, maybe a couple of hundred thousand dollars cheaper than a lambo though. And I also wouldn't act like a dick and rev the engine while sitting at the lights, before trying to show off the 'raw power' of my manly machine. I don't see how people can justify that much money on a vehicle that has 2 seats and where 95% of its power is unusable due to it never being safe to drive at full speed. It's retarded.
Do I suppose then that you have bought a really expensive dick replacement car? Or do you just lust after them?

How people spend their money is their business, and requires no justification from anyone. Also, how do you know it was not the first time this person had driven it and underestimated its power? You say you would like to buy a nicer car. Well, it's ALL relative, because a guy, even lower down the food chain than you, may find YOUR choice indefensible. Tell you what, why don't we all buy the same car and srew individuality. As for me? I aspire to an Aston Martin and, no, it won't be a "dick replacement." Actually, you are quite fond of the word "dick" so you really should quit while you are behind, because with each sentence you reaffirm that you are one.

>> ^A10anis:

>> ^spoco2:
That just makes me happy:
Dick who bought a lambo in the first place
Dick who thinks it's appropriate to give it some pedal going round a corner to show off why he spent so much money on a CAR
Dick smashes into other cars, causes no injuries, just VERY expensive damage to his car, and to others which he'll have to pay for.
Bravo sir, you've made me quite, quite happy.

Bravo Sir; Your comments clearly demonstrate that you are just a sad, jealous, guy. Let me guess your response; "I have the money to buy a lamborghini but don't want to look a dick." Yeah, sure. Here is a quote that may help you; "jealousy is the tribute those who haven't, pay to those who have."


Really? You're going to try to justify people who spend the price of a house on a car, and then have no idea how to drive it? That's the line you're going to take? Because it's pretty indefensible.

I'm never going to say "I have the money to buy a Lamborghini". I seriously doubt I'll ever have that much disposable cash. If I did have huge sums of cash, I would quite like to have a nice car, sure, maybe a couple of hundred thousand dollars cheaper than a lambo though. And I also wouldn't act like a dick and rev the engine while sitting at the lights, before trying to show off the 'raw power' of my manly machine. I don't see how people can justify that much money on a vehicle that has 2 seats and where 95% of its power is unusable due to it never being safe to drive at full speed. It's retarded.

Do I suppose then that you have bought a really expensive dick replacement car? Or do you just lust after them?

I keep getting dark poetry:

The eldritch chains and leather,
The haunting rites of blood,
Instruments of random murder.

Death church.
Sodomy and lust.
Sleepless, no love lost,
Set me free.

Blowing free,
Naked in the rain.
The hanged man,
The pyrrhic victory.
Creepy green light.

Totentanz, the dance of death.
I'm alive - sacrificed.
I'm going home,
Die with me.

Pain.
Burnt.
I'm broken.
Mother, do you love me?

Nightmare lollipop.
Bittersweet.
Red, white and blue.
Witches' brew.

Ruin and misery,
Becoming cold,
Shadows on the horizon,
Death certificate.

Running blood.
I died for you.
Death comes to the Unicorn Prince.
Betrayal. Gloom.

Hero of the day,
Dragged down,
Slaughtered.
Where the slime live,
Where dragons rule.

@BoneRemake

I was watering my rose garden and you walked by my place
I almost ran up to you in a lustful, unsensitive haste
I almost cried cause I acted so insensitive
But I wanted you to know about the feather-soft warmth I could give

I respect your feelings
I respect your gender
I respect your existence
I'll always be tender
Cause I respect your feelings
As a woman and a human

I'll be the pansy-growing gardener of our bouquet of love
A flower-wielding soldier with the grace of a dove
I'll love you all, heart, mind and soul, I'd never think of anything cheap
I'll read you some of my poems before you go to sleep

I respect your feelings
I respect your gender
I respect your existence
I'll always be tender
Cause I respect your feelings
As a woman and a human

>> ^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.

Anyone ever exposed to babies know they are natures worst STD, tee hee.



I like Christopher Langan idea, of a "from birth" birth control, so that ALL pregnancies are a rational decision rather than by lust. Many of the worlds problems wouldn't be such a big deal if there weren't so many of us. We create a lot of hardship in providing for people by having more people tomorrow than we did today.

edit: ( I have always loved the word "Jesuit", there is just something smooth about the way that it is said, one of my favorite words, as it discombobulated)

*ban

I was thinking of bootin Yogi for his bullshit he flings around, but this will suffice my lust.

@spoco2

You THINK you know the truth of there even being a god, and you believe you know who this god is. But these are THOUGHTS and are not backed up by ANYTHING whatsoever. 2+2 = 4 is backed up by being able to SHOW it... you can take 2 beads, take another 2 beads, count them, and have 4 beads.

You cannot point at ANYTHING and say 'See, there's my proof that there is a god, he is the one in the bible, and that is true'.

If you prayed to Jesus Christ and sincerely admitted that you are a sinner, asked for His forgiveness and asked Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior, you would come to know there is a God. It is something which can be empirically verified.

And I said that it was fine for you to believe that there was one true god. Go right ahead and believe that you have found that 'truth'. It's your forcing of YOUR belief in this on others, this belief that cannot be shown to be true in any way. This belief of yours that a man who sleeps with another man is damned to hell forever and so should be feared and scorned is horrible.

If it's fine to believe that Jesus is God incarnate, then it is also fine for me to obey His commands, one of which is to preach the gospel. This is a fundamental right that every american has according to the first ammendment. Why should I be censored? You feel free to say what I believe is not correct. Why shouldn't you be censored?

A man who tells a lie, steals something, blasphemes the name of God, or looks at a woman with lust is on his way to hell. One sin isn't necessarily worse than any other sin; the wages of sin is death, and all have sinned. So the man who lies is just as guilty as the man who sleeps with another man. God cares so much about the well being of His Universe that He punishes all sin with eternity in hell. He cares so much about us that He gave His only Son to take our place in punishment, so we could be forgiven and have eternal life. Those who reject His mercy will have to face His justice.

My beliefs, those of science and observable phenomenon, do not say anything about how people choose to live their lives. My morals state that anyone is free to be with whoever they want to. They can live however they want, including believing in an invisible man in the sky with a long, flowing beard, as long as that way of living doesn't try to do harm to others.

You are doing harm to others. Mumford and Sons are not.

Many of your views may hide behind apron of true science, but I can guaranatee you that the presuppositions of your worldview are not based on empirical testing. As far as who is doing harm, if you saw someone in a burning building, would you not stop to try and rescue them? At least one atheist understands this:

http://videosift.com/video/Penn-Jillette-gets-a-Bible