No bible was used in the making of this video, because it is factually incorrect. If you have to distort something to mock it you don't have a case..I thought atheists liked to boast about their bible knowledge?

Eve was tempted by Satan, not a talking snake. Adam and Eve both sinned when they ate the fruit, but the crime was not eating fruit, it was disobeying God. Their sin brought death into the world.

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

Jesus and the Father are not the same person. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, but they are both God. God is three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not impregnate Mary; the Father sent the third person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit, in this wise:

"And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God."

Jesus did not sacrifice Himself to Himself. Again, the Father and the Son are not the same person. He was an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. He bore the punishment (death) for all sins so that through Him, we could be forgiven for our sins and be given eternal life.

"This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins"

A dead body was not required for Gods plan of redemption, to correct the mistakes human beings made. What was required was a man who lived a perfect, sinless life in total obedience to God. Since no human being could fulfill that requirement, God sent His Son in our place.

"Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come

But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.

For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ."

People are not sent to hell for doubting the love of God. They are sent to hell for their sins. God offers forgiveness to every single person, and He does not desire that any should perish, but that all will come to repentance. Never the less, because God is Holy and just, He will punish all sin.

People are not saved by taking the sacraments. That is a catholic ritual. We are only saved by faith in Jesus Christ, and that faith alone will justify us before God. We eat bread and drink of the fruit of the vine in remembrance of Him, but that is all.

The Kingdom of Heaven is not in the sky. The Kingdom of Heaven is on Earth, and will be in this Universe. We are not going anywhere. We will experience life as God had originally designed it, here on Earth, before the fall.

The gospel is simple:

We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and the wages of our sin is death. Because of sin we are spiritually separated from God and headed for His prison called hell. He has set a day to judge the world, and on that day all sin will be punished. However, God doesn't want to send anyone to hell. He created it for the devil and his angels, not human beings. He loves us, which is why God sent His only Son to bear the punishment for our sins, in our place, so we wouldn't have to go to hell. He took all of our sins upon Himself on the cross, and died in our place.

Now, because of Jesus, we can be forgiven and go free. Jesus paid our fine in full. This is the good news, that through Jesus our sins are forgiven, and that He grants us eternal life. Pray to Jesus Christ and ask Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior, and you will be saved.

But honestly, choggie had his chance for redemption and blew it. If blankfist wants to return he should be given a similar conditional trial run. But first, he should make his case to dag. If he doesn't want to come back or doesn't have any intention of changing whatever behavior got him banned, then there's no point.

dft is just on a self-inflicted, 2-week time out. No sense worrying about him. He'll be back soon enough.

[edit] Although mint makes a compelling case above: bring choggie back and never again will the top 15 be filled with banal cat videos.

I can actually imagine permutations of the sequence of events that would lead one down Zimmerman's logic, up to and including shooting Trayvon.

... and in not ONE of these scenarios is Zimmerman NOT guilty of manslaughter.

He made a mistake and should he admit it, maybe deserves some chance at redemption. I don't see him admitting it though, thats the thing -- he thought he was right.

If he was capable of thinking otherwise, we wouldnt be here at all.

Sorry but Ebert is not only in the minority, he's also just wrong.

The Raid is a terse, well executed action flick. It is phenomenally well paced and shot.

The shortest story in the english language was written by Hemingway. "For sale, baby shoes. Never worn".
On the face of it there are no characters, no plot. But anyone who spends more than a second can see the story behind the story. So it is with the raid.

>> ^flechette:

All I can say is, I want to like football (or soccer, whatever it is) more than I do, but I just can't fathom watching something for half an hour before someone scores. To be fair, I think baseball is more boring to watch, but for a different reason.


Ah, this is the beauty in football. Every match is different, you'll see different approaches, different styles, different attitudes, individual skill, teamwork. It's not just about scoring goals.

But it's not easy. It's a game of skill and if you're good or the opposition is very bad then you'll score lots. Or you'll enjoy one of those humdingers where either side might score at any time.

But often we're forced to endure turgid rubbish, it just happens sometimes, but the ultimate redemption is when finally, finally someone scores a goal. It's a satisfying release of energy and there is honestly nothing much like it even if your team has been playing like utter twits.

It is really, as much about the journey as the destination.

Hopefully it's a nice ride (I'd pay good money to see a mazey Messi dribble where he failed to score, rather than someone bundle one in) but sometimes it can be perversely enjoyable to see a bad team scrape a result.

On the other hand, going back to a U.S sport like basketball I see no particular thrill from seeing two sides trade baskets ad-infintum. It's just a relentless predictable, progression to the end at which point someone wins and players can crow about their "stats". I always loved playing basketball but it doesn't work for me as a spectator sport.

Meanwhile I love Football (American Football as we Brits tend to call it). That has more in common with soccer than any other U.S sport IMO. Players are still far too in thrall to coaches but it remains a magnificent spectacle.

Baseball I don't really get - but I respect it's traditions and iconic status in sport.

I liked Ebert's take on it:

"'The Raid: Redemption' is essentially a visualized video game that spares the audience the inconvenience of playing it."

"There's obviously an audience for the film, probably a large one. They are content, even eager, to sit in a theater and watch one action figure after another pound and blast one another to death. Have you noticed how cats and dogs will look at a TV screen on which there are things jumping around? It is to that level of the brain's reptilian complex that the film appeals."

"So what am I saying? "The Raid: Redemption" failed as a generic success because it simplified its plot too much? Not really. It is a generic success. And yet my heart sank and I asked myself: Is this all they want? Are audiences satisfied with ceaseless violence, just so long as they can praise it for being "well choreographed?" Is there no appreciation for human dimension, meaning, and morality?"

1. Yes, Randall should die. It's unfortunate, but by his own admission, he's already confirmed that the group he was with are not the most savory characters. He knows where the farm is and who Maggie and her family are. Plus, he knows that most of Rick's group are keen to kill him, which makes his motive for escape that much more enforced. At least his former group never tried to kill him. (We can't speculate here; only that facts that are presented to us, the audience) So he's definitely a liability to Rick's group.

2. Karl wants to prove himself. He's got two father figures telling him what to do, on top of a guarding mother. How should his parents approach the situation? Well...they haven't seen anything "wrong" yet, other than mouthing off to Carol. They don't know he stole Darrel's handgun, or confronted a zombie in the woods, etc. As for Karl wanting his Dad to shoot Randall, I'm sure Rick will have a sitdown and try to explain to him the logic behind his initial decision, and then the subsequent change of mind. Will he confess responsibility about the zombie? Tough call; if the writer's stick with the old Karl, he will. But Karl has changed (per his actions in this episode) and we never saw an apology to Carol. He could just shut down and harden up. Will the guilt get the better of him? I'd say yes, due to 1) he seems to have been brought up with a sense of justice and "doing the right thing" in part because of his father being a cop, and 2) at that age, when you screw up that bad, you don't just hide it away. He'll either confess, or confide in someone. I would have said he would have confided in Dale, but...well...you know....

3. Was it the right time to kill off Dale? Is it the right to ever kill of a character? Well, seeing as they've COMPLETELY strayed from the original Dale/Andrea story line in the original source material, I guess now is as good a time as any. My guess his Hershel will step up and take the mantel of the archetypal wise old man; it could give his character some redemption, if the writer's choose to go that route.
My immediate reaction to him dying was thinking "Well, Jeffrey DeMunn's off the show....I wonder what he'll do next with Frank Darabont..." Was his early death motivated by television politics....who knows. It seems to me that when you get an actor/director pairings, like DeMunn/Darabont, Russell/Carpenter, Depp/Burton, those tend to be pretty strong allegiances. I'm sure if there was some background gaffing over Darabont leaving the series, DeMunn was more than onboard with Darabont and wasn't surprised his character was killed off. I'll wait for the eventual news story/tell all book.

***Possible spoilers ahead if you haven't read the graphic novels***
As an aside, I'll cut back to season 1 for a moment, and what Jenner whispered to Rick before blowing up the CDC. I don't think he whispered some major secret to Rick; I have a feeling Jenner explained to Rick that "they" were the walking dead, and not the creatures outside. This is given in a huge, revelatory speech at the end of one of the books, don't remember which, after Rick breaks down from all the stress/guilt/death (that will eventually happen?). Seems a perfect fit into the storyline as they haven't mentioned it since the beginning of season 2 (when he's trying to reach Morgan on the radio). And I'm still waiting on Merle to show back up as the Governor.

I really do like the melody of this song and moreover the lyrics are a perfect fit. Seven Devils being what I would assume to be the seven deadly sins. It's great wordplay and it shows that their is a strong sense of despair in the air--maybe this person has lost their battle (with these Devils--but, very much will make sure they burn--if that's the last thing they do) and like it says tonight/today they'll die by their own hand or perhaps someone wanting revenge. Ultimately this is someone expecting the worse, but no matter what they seek redemption in some form I think.

mmmmmmmmm... bibley!>> ^dag:

Well if you're going to summon @shinyblurry - you need the right incantation. Mecca lecca high, mecca hiney ho!>> ^shuac:
I can't wait for shinyblurry to come and tell us why vicarious redemption isn't immoral. Or how vicarious redemption isn't at all like scapegoating (assuming scapegoating is bad). Or how the term "vicarious redemption" doesn't really apply to Jesus (assuming vicarious redemption is bad).
Basically, anything to do with Christianity is good. And any and all criticism of it is bad.
^ That's what I can't wait for shinyblurry to come and do.
And quote scripture. That's my favorite.

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

Well if you're going to summon @shinyblurry - you need the right incantation. Mecca lecca high, mecca hiney ho!>> ^shuac:

I can't wait for shinyblurry to come and tell us why vicarious redemption isn't immoral. Or how vicarious redemption isn't at all like scapegoating (assuming scapegoating is bad). Or how the term "vicarious redemption" doesn't really apply to Jesus (assuming vicarious redemption is bad).
Basically, anything to do with Christianity is good. And any and all criticism of it is bad.
^ That's what I can't wait for shinyblurry to come and do.
And quote scripture. That's my favorite.

I can't wait for shinyblurry to come and tell us why vicarious redemption isn't immoral. Or how vicarious redemption isn't at all like scapegoating (assuming scapegoating is bad). Or how the term "vicarious redemption" doesn't really apply to Jesus (assuming vicarious redemption is bad).

Basically, anything to do with Christianity is good. And any and all criticism of it is bad.

^ That's what I can't wait for shinyblurry to come and do.

And quote scripture. That's my favorite.

Sorry, I'm confused. Yes, we can all agree that his past attitude is less than stellar, but he's not allowed a shot at redemption now?

"Jay-Z trying to ban the word b*tch after giving birth to a girl is like a mass murderer asking other killers to be nice to his relatives. His music has helped to infect the world with the virus of misogyny, and now he wants to act like the Center for Disease Control. He’s like the homophobic pastor who leads anti-gay lynch mobs and later finds out that his own son is gay."

WTF? Assuming the people involved have realised the error of their ways, all of those examples are good things!

Seriously, if Fred Phelps stood up tomorrow and said "I'm sorry. I was a bigoted idiot and I've realised the hurt I've caused", you wouldn't applaud him?

Where I would fault him is that words ultimately mean little. So you're going to stop calling women bitches on record? Good for you. Are you going to do anything more substantial to make amends?

@TheSluiceGate
hey thanks for the response my friend.(though in bullet form..blech)
i now have a clearer picture in what you were trying to convey,and if i have your stance correct:

1.you found this video to be a glorification of drug addiction and not the religious aspects.

i disagree and your previous comments do also.i disagree that this was a glorification of any kind but rather ones mans courage to put himself out there and explain where he was and what helped him walk away still breathing.nobody goes around and broadcasts how they are an addict and have lost control of their lives.i feel this video is more of public service for those who may suffer and silence and feel they are alone,which is quite common among addicts.we can disagree on this...our perceptions just differ.as for the religious aspects may i just point to your last paragraph.notice anything?

you are free to chastise this man for his conversion to christianity and putting his recovery on giving himself over to jesus.that is not only your choice but your right but please dont say your premise was not influenced by the religious aspects when it obviously was.you said so in your own words.

2.you are an atheist and disagree with my use of "redemption" because of its religious connotations and would prefer "recovery".

i can agree that "recovery" is also an apt term to use but it does not convey in a complete sense what "redemption" conveys.
you dont "recover" from guilt and shame.
you are "redeemed" and this does not have to have anything to do with religion but it does has EVERYTHING to do with brutal honesty.to have the courage to face oneself with eyes wide open and accept the choices...AND consequences.this is a process that needs to happen to start the healing process which can only begin with forgiveness.
to forgive oneself.
this does not,by implication,necessarily mean that jesus has to come in to your life.
or buddha.
or allah.
or the great spirit.
but usually for addicts it is something outside themselves.this could be a person you greatly admire and respect which could help fascillitate a similar outcome.
hence my captain crunch reference.

i would also like to address that your disagreement with me is actually an agreement.
while i agree with your assesment on my over-simplification let me just point out:
emptiness=psychological
pain=physical
my over-simplification was to shave off all the myriad redundancies to reveal the nugget/core.

3.you are not some big meanie.

my apologies if i implied that you were in any capacity.i chose my words carefully in order to provoke you into revealing your TRUE motivation and in that context i succeeded but allow me to apologize for the manipulation.
i didnt want to respond in a presumptuous manner,even though i had suspicions to your true dislike of this video.

and here was my general thinking.
why would somebody find a video where a man admits,on VIDEO,how he almost killed himself due to his addictions and lost that which was most dear,and his consequent "recovery",be perceived as a bad thing?
and the only conclusion i could come up with was the "jesus" factor as being the bitter pill.
just look at the views to votes ratio.you are not exactly alone my friend.

would you feel the same way if this man had started recovery from meeting a distinguished scientist? or philosopher?
who helped him see the world differently and hence gave him the courage to face what he needed to face?
i presume (falsely maybe) that you and many on this site would have cheered this man for his courage but since this man gave his life to jesus and credits jesus for his recovery he is relegated to the silly bin.
my response is:whatever works for ya.do it and do it NOW.if that means jesus or the FSM then by all means...have at it.

i AM an ex-junkie.
and i dont mean i had a small "problem" but i was the rip-snorting we-are-going-for-a-fucking-ride kinda junkie.
the wake up across state lines on the beach-how the fuck did i get here kinda junkie.
i assist those who wish to be clean.
i let them stay in my spare room so they can go through detox (worst experience a person can endure imo).
i do not judge.
i do not preach.
i make it ok.
because i am fluent in the language of the broken and forsaken because i was once just like them.
this is mainly where my "nobody can do it alone" comment was inspired.because a junkie cannot get clean by him/herself.their self loathing is too dominant and the desire to numb themselves from their own past too strong an impulse to ignore.

so when you see a junkie you may (rightly so) see a person who has made some bad choices.maybe you hope they will seek treatment and get better but they need to accept responsibility.
i agree with that, but you judge them while not understanding THEY have already judged themselves and their judgment is so much harsher than you could ever imagine.they believe themselves to be less than nothing and execute that verdict with a raging self-hatred everytime they use.which then becomes a never-ending cycle of guilt and shame.

i attempt to break that cycle for those who seek to become healthy and whole again.sometimes i succeed but more often i fail.
so if jesus is a part of somebody finding the strength and courage to face their demons then who are we to judge?

i do hope you take this comment in the spirit it was written.
with honesty and respect.i truly appreciate your contributions to this subject (which is obviously close to home for me) and indulging my curiosity with how an atheist views subjects such as these.
it would be interesting to see how many votes a video similar to this would get if there was no reference to jesus or god.

thank you TSG.

Hi Enoch, my comment was more aimed at the production style of the video itself and how it glorified this ex-junkie, not necessarily about the religious aspect at all. But seeing as you asked...

"this is about redemption"

I think it's about a man who was taking drugs that stopped taking drugs. You can call this redemptive in a loose sense. I think "recovery" would be closer to the mark, and also is free of any irrelevant religious connotation.

"in my travels i have come to the conclusion that those who suffer from addiction (of any kind) are battling an emptiness or pain within themselves,in one form or another."

I don't agree. There's a myriad of reasons while people become addicted to things ranging from the psychological to the physical. Yours reason is, however, possibly one of them - but to say that this is the main one is an over simplification.

"that is the beauty of this story. This man found his redemption in the form of jesus christ.
he found forgiveness in christ. Would you deny him this for the simple fact he started on the road to addiction years ago? Who cares if he found salvation in jesus or a talking box of captain crunch.
the fact that he found something that helped give him the strength to deal with his addiction should suffice,no matter what vehicle it was that helped him to defeat his own personal demons.
"

I'm glad he didn't die and has turned his life around by whatever method. But what now if, clear of his crisis, he realises that the pillar of his recovery is a fictional deity. Hopefully he wouldn't falter in his sobriety, but if Jesus really is as important in the equasion as he seems to be here then there could be a problem. He should be putting himself and his daughter first, not jesus. Brian Welsh and his daughter, unlike jesus, actually exist.


"have you been a junkie?
are you speaking from experience?"

No I've not been a junkie, but I've seen how drug and alcohol addiction and it's effects on peoples lives around me. This is not, of course, the same as being a junkie, but why do you ask?

"should we abandon all those who make bad choices to their own devices?"

This is falsely reductive statement. Just because I think the tone of this video is all wrong, and that it falsely deifies this ex-junkie doesn't mean that I think people who suffer from addiction should not be treated.I don't think anything I've said implied that.

"Because i have found that nobody can experience this journey we call life alone and those that have convinced themselves they can are deluding themselves."

Not sure of the relevance of this statement, but anyway... Yes of course life is much better and easier when we are not alone - as it is also if one was recovering from addiction.

I do however think that, in terms of deluding oneself, believing that there's a supernatural deity that's going to save you from all harm is one of the ultimate delusions. And a very dangerous one.

Exactly,
It doesn't matter if you "found salvation in Jesus or a talking box of captain crunch."

The fact is, although Captain Crunch is a tastier option, so many people choose religion, often Christianity. Redemption and Grace are the two things someone is looking for when their lives spiral out of control. It just so happens that faith in religion offers this.

And yes, Kudos to those who can find, within them, either the strength to quit the spiral early. Or even more so, those who do it at a later stage, but like Enoch mentions, there is most often a reason why they got to that place in the first place. That healing doesn't just happen on it's own, grace and redemption are very powerful tools and the people that are offering them are offering them a philosophy of forgiveness and unconditional help.

PS: I'm still wondering if there is a 12-step program that uses Captain Crunch, because I just may sign up for that one.