>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

OWS=Fix Government... Tea Party=Destroy Government...
Based on - what exactly? Even the most cursory examination of the OWS goons shows they are a bunch of anarchists who would blow up the whole system if given thier druthers. The Tea Party has shown no such tendencies.
The Tea Party operates on the premise of influencing elections legally by voting for people who will reduce the size, scope and influence of government (a VERY necessary goal). OWS operates on the premise of illegal squatting, riots, and attacking completely innocent 3rd parties like cops, businesses, and private citizens.


The base message of each movement is government is bad vs. we need to take back government. The TP actually started out with the same base message as OWS but were unfortunately led astray by $$$.

I'm a (fully educated & employed) "occupy goon" and I only assaulted two people and one dog today. I couldn't fit in any more murder as my knives are dull. Go easy bro, I'm trying to live up to your exceptional T-Par-T standards but it's tough with all this blood-lust running through my crazy anarchist brain.

Watch more faux k?

>> ^bareboards2:

@carneval
Badge lust. That is the only thing to call it....
Except this one isn't under your control -- you have to be a good sifter, consistently, to earn this puppy.
Congrats!


Thanks! =) It's always nice to get a surprise badge...

@carneval

Badge lust. That is the only thing to call it....

Except this one isn't under your control -- you have to be a good sifter, consistently, to earn this puppy.

Congrats!

>> ^bareboards2:

@carneval
Guy gets hisself (his, right?) a bronze and gits to work on earning badges.... and power points for RAISING THE DEAD.
Badge lust. It is seductive....


Thanks! =)

I is a his. And yes, I have badge lust...

@carneval

Guy gets hisself (his, right?) a bronze and gits to work on earning badges.... and power points for RAISING THE DEAD.

Badge lust. It is seductive....

"struck by how many brave, curious people recorded the events" my ass. they recorded for the same reason folks go to nascar racing or stop at traffic accidents: thrill seeking and carnage lust.

For me it does the exact opposite. It puts me on the shoes of the children and how they might feel if they knew some creep was watching them and lusting over them.

This, compared to what is happening to a lot of people is somewhat harmless. They are are a couple, they are having sex with each other. There is no shame in that.
Of course, we live in a society that thinks watching an act of love or passion or lust between two consenting, and in this case, loving people is somehow aboherrent, when it's anything but.

I dream of a day when sex, will be viewed upon as something as normal as breathing (because it is!!), and nothing to be hidden or afraid of.

But on the subject of this economy, there are a lot of people who are unfortunately falling into prostitution, and that is bad. They have no social protection, they feel ashamed and hitting rock bottom, it's dangerous, and for someone who didn't really want to do something like that as a career, it's also very mentally damaging.

Yes, as much as I lust for a Bronze Crown, a song is even more seductive....

Like your avatar, by the way. Cute and menacing both. Quite an accomplishment!

In reply to this comment by Sylvester_Ink:
Thanks! Maybe one day Dag will be forced to compose a song about me too.

In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
Golden Gold One. Goldster. Goldiness.

Good on you, gold on you!

Hey kids. You were born because your daddy sprayed his love juice all up inside mummies lust hole. Straight sex is pretty fucking gross. Ban it.

Okay, maybe I shouldn't have said Wrroonngg so quickly--but you presume that your readings about Rome are more extensive than mine.

Nero, Caligula and many later Emperors are examples of the human psyche let loose. Psychopaths with no restrictions on their behavior.

The Roman Republic lasted for almost 500 years--during which time--homosexuality was looked on as a vice and shameful behavior. Emperor Augustus imposed strict modesty and morality edicts--including homosexual activities--which didn't apply to him. So even in the later, Empire Era, Rome was hardly be considered, "one big, gay death machine."

"Marcus Aurelius was straight at least..." This one gave me a laugh.


The Love Letters of Emperor Marcus Aurelius and Marcus Cornelius Fronto
Excerpts from My Dear Boy: Gay Love Letters through the Centuries (1998), Edited by Rictor Norton

From Marcus Cornelliius Fronto to Marcus Aurelius

Your lover, too, as they say, composes some amatory writings about you in the hope of enticing you with this bait, if with no other, and attracting you to himself and catching you; but such things are a disgrace and an insult and a sort of licentious cry, the outcome of stinging lust, such as those of wild beasts and fed cattle, that from sexual desire bellow or neigh or low or howl. Like to these are the lyrics of lovers. If, therefore, you submit yourself to your lover to enjoy where and when he pleases, awaiting neither time that is fitting nor leisure nor privacy, then, like a beast in the frenzy of desire, will he make straight for you and be eager to go to it not the least ashamed. . . .

"But then they went through the phase where prostitutes could fuck any man they wanted, even while wed and in plain sight, and the Christian empress would have the man executed if he said something..."

The role of prostitution in other societies varies--ours is not the only moral way. And the actions of the Christian church are--during most of it's history--atrocious. I thought you were talking about early Rome with it's outright destruction and pillage.

"You get the point. Rome was confused but definitely bi with a leaning more towards homosexuality--despite their 'laws.'"

A whole country was BI? Wow--just wow.


>> ^Lawdeedaw:

@Boise_Lib
Now now, don't say I am wrong quiet yet. I just read up on Rome and have the advantage here (I read like fucking two days’ worth...)
Nero was more than gay (He married a man as his husband and a man as his wife...see slit in lieu of vagina,) and Caligula (Who was fucking a man while in the arena in front of everyone, then had that man beheaded during climax) was bi and Tiberius (Who was fucking Caligula after murdering his family) was bi and the typical soldier, and...wait, yeah, there were many more. Basically, 14 out of 15 were gay or gay-ish at least. By that I mean some were open, some closed. Commodus? Yeah, gay...
(Most were simply bi just to have a son btw. Otherwise it would have been just man on man.)
The whole conflict with homosexuality came in later--after the Roman Catholic Church gained power... Now, that's not saying it wasn't against the law in the early days--but that's the same as adultery, yet then orgies were common even though they were illegal... let's pretend the law doesn't matter here---because it didn't...
Marcus Aurelius was straight at least...
And yes, this was the early Rome, when it was brutal, but then that's what I was talking about when I said the world hated them. Later, yes, later they began to hate homosexual behavior. But then they went through the phase where prostitutes could fuck any man they wanted, even while wed and in plain sight, and the Christian empress would have the man executed if he said something...
You get the point. Rome was confused but definitely bi with a leaning more towards homosexuality--despite their "laws."
@shuac I meant the crimes of Rome itself, not homosexuals. It's kind of hard to forgive a nation that captured and enslaved your city and then raped your male children with abandon.
@hpqp
I don't think homosexuality is girly, but that's their reasoning... Sad, so sad because it is not true.

1. You didn't answer whether you'd condemn someone's children for their parents' crime. All you did was spout the usual christian creed about fall/redemption, with which I am perfectly familiar.

I don't know what I would or wouldn't do regarding Adam and Eve. I'm not God, and have no idea what He was weighing on the scales. What I am trying to get you to understand is that although we are born in a corrupted world, because of Adam and Eve, we all still have the same chance as Adam and Eve to get it right. So, although we are born in a less ideal world than the paradise they had, we still have a chance which is equal to the pre-fall state of things. We're all still presented with the same choice He offered them, to obey His law, or to try it our own way, with the exact same consequences.

2. You make numerous assumptions about me, and then base your sorry excuse for an argument on them. No, I'm NOT fine with "humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans", and even if I was, it is nothing like an all-powerful, supposedly all-benevolent being punishing all humanity for the "crime" of two people (and for eternity on top of it). And how in hell can you equate "serious crimes" (I imagine mass murder or serial child rape... oh wait, God condones those), with not loving and believing in a hypothetic being? Thought crime much?

How do you propose that criminals should be handled? Should they get a good talking to and sign a paper promising never to do it again? How should a murder be handled, for instance, if someone is clearly guilty?

The sins that you will stand before God for will be your own. You haven't been punished yet, and it won't be for the crimes of Adam, it will be for the crimes of hpqp.

Now there hasn't been a human being who has ever lived who has not broken Gods laws. That isn't the point. It is not so much sinners that get punished, it is unrepentant sinners who love evil who get punished. God forgives sins, but not wicked people. Your crime isn't not loving God so much as it is loving evil more than God. You see, if you knew who God was you would understand that all the good things that have happened in your life came from Him. You don't know how God loves you, or the ways He has shown it to you. You only see this sad characterization you have of God from your uninformed ideas about who He is supposed to be. You've never understand your practical, experiential relationship with Him because you are spiritually blind. God takes care of everyone, the good and the bad. Every good gift is from the Father of lights. You actually do have love for God but you give the credit to other things.

3. Your "Think about it this way" paragraph is a long convoluted way of rephrasing the "mafia boss" tactic that I had already mentioned, also known as coercion. "It's your choice, you don't like the don, you don't respect his authority, fine, you don't have to pay protection money. He's your friend, you know, the whole neighbourhood's friend, but it's okay, it's your choice, friend. He's not going to force you to pay up. ...just don't be surprised when your bistro catches fire and your wife falls off a balcony."

God doesn't create rules to boss His creatures around. If God wanted to rule over His creatures in that way, He would be sitting on a throne on Earth right now and we'd all be groveling before Him. He creates rules because He knows good and evil. He knows which behaviors lead to death and corruption, and which lead to life and perfection. The rules are for our benefit.

Gods rules aren't hard to live by. Don't lie, don't steal, don't murder, dont worship other gods, dont make idols, dont lust, dont covet, dont blasphemy and honor your mother and father. Love your neighbor as yourself.

Here is the one you have a problem with: Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, and all your mind, and all your spirit and all your strength.

What you hate about God is His authority. You enjoy breaking some of those commandments and you resent that you would ever be held accountable for doing so. You enjoy your autonomy to sin. So you refuse to follow that greatest commandment, to love God. You have all sorts of excuses why not, but the real reason is, you don't want to stop living life the way you do. You love your sin more than the truth. So you hate God and work dilligently to suppress the truth. Look at your profile on this site..a lot of your work is anti-religious, and specifically anti-christian.

4. If you can't see the internal incoherence of your 2nd point (about the HS) than you are absolutely lost logic-wise. And before saying "you're avoiding the issue!!!", I'm not, the dilemma I posed remained completely unanswered, my question remains the same, scroll up if you've forgotten it.

I believe your question centered on the blasphemy challenge, that since you made a little video saying you denied the Holy Spirit that you had committed the unforgivable sin and could never be saved. That's what I was disputing.

At the time, I thought blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was simply rejecting the Holy Spirit by denying Christ while you were a Christian. Since then, I have found that isn't the case. I have frequently sensed the presence of the Spirit in ex-christians, which confused me for a bit until I realized that although they were done with Christ, Christ wasn't done with them. Meaning, if you ever had the Spirit, nothing that you do will necessarily force Him to leave. Basically, when you believe in Jesus, you receive eternal life, not conditional life, so you could not commit an eternal sin.. The concensus is that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit isn't possible today, that it was only possible specifically against Jesus Himself, when people suggested His power came from demons.

5. I'm guessing that your scripture quoting is a way of say - without committing yourself to it - that those who aren't chosen are going to hell.... including all those who are simply not christian?

I don't believe in predestination for all believers, although I do believe God does have plans for specific people, like His prophets for example.

Also, what is this nonsense of God approving of serial child rape? That is patently false. As far as murder, God has used people to execute His sovereign will. That isn't murder. Under the law, the penalty of sin is death. So, His judgement was lawful.

>> ^hpqp:
@shinyblurry
Can you really blame me for being suspicious that a probie named "shinyblurry", posting a shiny and blurry video with a title stating so seriously "God DOES exist!", but which contained nothing but a pathetic argument from personal experience, was not trying to stir the pot (of a rather atheistic-leaning site) in a trollish manner? But you're right, you're not a troll, you're a fundagelical. I'm not sure which one is less flattering.
And no, there really is no debating you intelligently. Just look at your answer to my questions above:
1. You didn't answer whether you'd condemn someone's children for their parents' crime. All you did was spout the usual christian creed about fall/redemption, with which I am perfectly familiar.
2. You make numerous assumptions about me, and then base your sorry excuse for an argument on them. No, I'm NOT fine with "humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans", and even if I was, it is nothing like an all-powerful, supposedly all-benevolent being punishing all humanity for the "crime" of two people (and for eternity on top of it). And how in hell can you equate "serious crimes" (I imagine mass murder or serial child rape... oh wait, God condones those), with not loving and believing in a hypothetic being? Thought crime much?
3. Your "Think about it this way" paragraph is a long convoluted way of rephrasing the "mafia boss" tactic that I had already mentioned, also known as coercion. "It's your choice, you don't like the don, you don't respect his authority, fine, you don't have to pay protection money. He's your friend, you know, the whole neighbourhood's friend, but it's okay, it's your choice, friend. He's not going to force you to pay up. ...just don't be surprised when your bistro catches fire and your wife falls off a balcony."
3. Another assumption about me: "I don't like God". WRONG, I don't believe in god(s); what I don't like is people indoctrinating their kids with lies and fear about supernatural non-entities, killing/hating/preaching at others, keeping science and moral progress back, basing laws and morals on the thoughts of tribal desert-dwellers, etc etc.
4. If you can't see the internal incoherence of your 2nd point (about the HS) than you are absolutely lost logic-wise. And before saying "you're avoiding the issue!!!", I'm not, the dilemma I posed remained completely unanswered, my question remains the same, scroll up if you've forgotten it.
5. I'm guessing that your scripture quoting is a way of say - without committing yourself to it - that those who aren't chosen are going to hell.... including all those who are simply not christian?
Yes, I "ran away" from the "debate", in order to retain my sanity and occupy my time more productively. (only reason why I'm answering you now is 'cause I'm procrastinating something I don't feel like doing... mmm, idleness is such a lovely workshop, I wonder whose is it? <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/wink.gif"> )
As for "you never provided an intelligent or comprehensive position..most of it was simply rooted in your amatuer understanding of scripture.", let me simply quote yours truly:
Preach on, brotherman. It's a sick kind of irony to do the very same thing you're accusing someone else of doing, especially whilst doing said accusing.
p.s.: Satan says "Hi"

Tags for this video have been changed from 'beast, lust' to 'beast, lust, Heaven Help Us' - edited by hpqp

This interpertation stems from jewish mysticism, but it doesn't at all follow from the passage:

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves

Sex is pleasing to the eye and good for food? She took sex and then gave it to her husband? It's a nonsense interpertation. This was about knowledge. Adam and Eve were in a state of innocence, kind of like babes, and relied on God for everything. Eve decided that she didn't want to be babied anymore and make her own decisions. She lusted after Gods wisdom; she wanted to make judgements for herself. God warned them against going it alone, and that it would lead to death..this is because the Lords ways are perfect, and perfection leads to eternal life. Imperfection leads to death. When Adam and Eve decided to try to take the place of God in their life, they became mortal, and corrupted. That's how sin and death entered the world, and is still the problem today..that people want to trust in their own wisdom above that of their Creator.



>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^bareboards2:
@packo, what is sad is that folks will watch this and not understand the illogical sand upon which the whole video sits. It is effective -- look at the votes it is garnering.
What bothers me so much is the whole idea of punishing Adam and Eve for gaining knowledge. For punishing them for "disobeying" God. It is the spine that runs through so much of the Christian religion -- shut up and do what the person in charge says.
Having said that, I recognize that many people crave the discipline and structure of an outside agency to help shape their lives.
Nothing is perfect. Religion does much good and helps folks. Religion is also responsible for some of the worst crimes against humanity. Both can be true, the statements are not mutually exclusive.
And therein lies true Freedom -- the choice to walk away from an authoritarian presence and create your own inner moral compass through free will, not because you are threatened with burning in hell for eternity.

Most say that Adam/Eve was about a threesome and that the fruit was a metaphor... Adam sleeping with a man (Devil) and sharing his wife with that man...

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.

I was an agnostic until I was suddenly given special revelation of Gods existence.
I found out later that this means I am elected, in that God already knew before He made anything that He would create me here and now for His purposes
Some Christians think everyone is elected. I don't, personally.

All I have to say is get the fuck over yourselves. You're not as smart as you think you are. How about you be honest and stop playing the philosophical gotchya game and admit there isn't a shred of evidence in your corner, what so ever, and if we want to get real, morality is inconvenient for your sinning so of course it has to go

Lacking an objective standard for morality, what makes it wrong? Why is it bad to have sex with animals, hurt people, rape people..

Now on your example of rape victims, there are different translations for the particular hebrew word. It's not clear that is what it is talking about. However, I'll address it in the literal sense, though I won't commit myself to this definition. Sex is considered the spiritual act of marriage. When people have relations they are cleaved together in the spirit. That's why fornication is forbidden. So, whether it was unfortunate or not, the couple were married spiritually at that point and thus they would only compound the sin by being seperated.

What Dan Savage does isn't sex. It's consensual sodomy. Thats part of what evil does is redefine the meanings of things. The love that two gay men have for eachother is not beautiful, it is repulsive. God does not approve of their union, and they should never be married. What they love is sin, and sin is not beautiful. It is an abomination before the Lord.

fornication is just plainly a sin, and for the reason that sex is a spiritual marriage between two people. You are spiritually joined to whomever you have sex with, forever.
maybe you reprobates can't imagine giving up your carnal lusts because its what you're living for, but that lifestyle is meaningless, sad and no better than what animals do.

Do you have even a modicum of dignity or self respect? You have promoted yourself as a harlot and you draw mens attention with lasciviousness. You are prostituting yourself and it is revolting.

If you care to give an argument that isn't based on hyperbole, I might actually engage you. Otherwise, you're just making yourself look foolish, even if the ignoramouses on this site happen to agree with you. Any objective person who has studied this at length would find your conclusions childish at best.

I find it amusing that atheists like to say they are all great happy loving people who actually do more good works than the average Christian does. LOL This must be your non-neckbearded internet dwelling variety. Not at all the bitter, purile, egotists who love to trash believers at any opportunity that I've experienced. I'm sorry but atheists are terrible people. Immoral, selfish and apathetic to a T. Violent and angry too. Atheists are usually the worst kind of people you could imagine.

I'm not surprised by the bias of the sift, nor the childish behavior of its members..I was interested if anyone here had an inherent sense of fairness and could look past their own bias..but I guess not

Christians love atheists..just because we think you're wrong doesn't mean we don't love you. Atheists on the other hand seem to have nothing but hatred and derision for us..

You have the gall to impringe on my witness and imply im crazy..hey, at least im internally consistant.

I really think passive aggressive people are the worst kind of people besides atheists. Put them together and you've got a front seat to the 7th circle of hell. To me, you might as well be banging rocks together if you don't know you have a soul, or there is a God. People like this are mostly automated because they don't really know how anything works, or that God controls everything.

I don't deride anyone who doesn't believe me, I just happen to know anyone who isn't interested has become self-satisfied with the worldly understanding..which is worthless.

you can always look back on the glory days when you were a talking turd on the internet..

if he wants to be civil and converse like real people instead of rabid animals, I'll be here.


How is it that atheists seem to believe they can just go around and treat someone like garbage and talk down to them like children because they think they're right about something..why is this socially acceptable?

Yes, you're free to do whatever you want. Like any other slack jawed yokel idiot, you can live life the charlie sheen way, shallowly indulging yourself in all the puerile tripe you identify with a winning lifestyle.

You'll get to mock God for a little while and do what you want, until His mercy runs out and He takes you off of this world. You'll be found guilty at the judgement and then you'll join the devil and his angels in the lake of fire. Do you think you'll think it was worth it then? I'm betting not.

If you want to have an actual debate on civilized terms, I'll engage you. I've already answered enough of this bullshit. God is sovereign and can adjudicate His creation as He pleases. He destroyed the entire world in a flood, and that's everyone on the planet except for 8 people or so, and I don't think He was wrong.
Personally, if I was God I probably would have blown this fucking planet up a long time ago.
It's not an atrocity to take a life when you were the one who granted it in the first place and the one who sustained it daily.

What is contemptible, vainglorious and infinitely evil is the desire to disobey God and sin without consequence. Anyone who adovocates that deserves their punishment.

Gay rights? Sinners have no rights, they are a slave to sin. America is becoming more like babylon every day, especially in what it deserves as punishment for its actions.

Apparently homosexual atheists are in force these days.

as usual the sift turns off its brain

I am a highly rational and logical person , who has reasoned these things out to a much deeper level than any of you would be willing to give me credit for

You're entitled to your malformed, tumor-swollen opinion. Mine happens to have biblical justification.

In the context of a bunch of googly eyed mouth breathers saying God doesn't exist, where Satans special little helpers file in to preach their faith, not much is going to come out of this which is positive.

Wow, emote much? See what actually happened here is that you posted a bunch of information that wasn't true (while being rude and childish to boot), and I corrected you. Now, you send me a comment filled with personal attacks and call me immature. I'm guessing you're probably..15? Give me a break. Go do your homework and clean your room while you're at it.

I have better things to do than waste my time arguing on the internet for fun, and it's not fun to argue.

I'm commanded by God to preach the gospel and it's a joy for me to do so. I also enjoy a lively debate. That's why I am here.

You ever notice how hypocrites usually contridict themselves within a few sentences? I do..

The devil was once an ArchAngel who was created faultless,
He was in fact just an arrogant, prideful being who wanted all the power for himself.

One day, people will thank me for opening their mind up to how they've been lied to every day of their life and indoctrinated into a world system thats literally trying to drag them straight to hell.

Satan has you.

You need professional help. Seriously. Not kidding about this.



Preach on, brotherman. It's a sick kind of irony to do the very same thing you're accusing someone else of doing, especially whilst doing said accusing.



>> ^shinyblurry:

You think you were sent by God? Try again..
And no, being openly degraded and treated as inhuman isn't something I enjoy. I would rather have a civil conversation any day.