The evening after the massacre at Orlando's Pulse nightclub, a California pastor took the opportunity to preach that "God said: When you find a sodomite, put them to death.'" A video of the sermon was uploaded by the church, then deleted "for violating YouTube's policy on hate speech." A copy of the video uploaded by someone else, describing the sermon as "despicable," was allowed to remain.
coverage:
- Sacramento Bee
- CBS (about sermon)
- New York Daily News
- Washington Post
further information:
Facebook page for Verity Baptist Church
(archived copy)
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @06:44AM
Also, usury is a terrible sin, so kick the pastor off his church if he has a bank account.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @07:40AM
Islamic bank accounts don't accrue interest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @07:56AM
Same as their women.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @08:04AM
Muslim women attract too much interest, that's why they're required to cover their irresistibly hot bodies.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday June 15 2016, @01:49PM
He has money therefore he must have acquired it immorally? WTF?
By that logic we should arrest you and take your car because you must have carjacked somebody.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday June 15 2016, @02:24PM
Usury used to be to charge or acquire any interest at all [wikipedia.org]. I'm pretty sure this pastor doesn't care much for the Pope's opinion of it being sinful or not.
I wish YouTube would leave stuff like this video up so it gets the rounds of condemnation it deserves.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday June 15 2016, @02:47PM
So we're complaining about a historically obsolete usage of a word to address a Middle Ages practice of the Catholic Church that probably nobody has cared about for a few hundred years. Geez people, pick your battles.
is, as defined today, the practice of making unethical or immoral monetary loans that unfairly enrich the lender.
A) it's not a loan
B) unfairly enrich the lender
C) sounds like the Pope doesn't care about "any interest at all" these days either.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday June 15 2016, @02:54PM
Geez people, pick your battles.
How about bacon++? Surely the pastor should be kicked off his church if he eats bacon!
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday June 15 2016, @02:59PM
He's a Baptist. I don't think Baptists give a crap about whether or not you eat bacon.
Alcohol, on the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me if they were against (not in an "eternal damnation" sense but in a social sense).
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday June 15 2016, @03:51PM
You think we're pedantic? Religion has more pointless flamewars than emacs vs. vi. [christianforums.com] So yes, people still argue over ancient superstitions and prohibitions from the literal "Word of God".
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday June 15 2016, @04:12PM
Hey, I'm all about having a good argument about how Christianity judged by its own rules doesn't make sense half the time :)
However I also like to set the record straight when somebody criticizes something about it where they have their facts wrong. Not that that shoe really fits you in this case.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by naubol on Wednesday June 15 2016, @04:56PM
You know why Baptists avoid having sex standing up? They're afraid someone will think they're dancing.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mcgrew on Wednesday June 15 2016, @04:50PM
You're confusing Judaism with Christianity. Mark 7:15, [mcgrewbooks.com] in Christ's own words, "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man."
What this preacher does wrong is HATING. A Christian is supposed to love EVERYONE and hate only sin, that we're all sinners.
Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing, sometime they're standing on the pulpit preaching the exact opposite of what Jesus taught.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Bot on Wednesday June 15 2016, @06:46AM
And I did not speak out, because I was already angry they censors legitimate vids when some media corporation tells them to.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @08:09AM
First they came for the unlicensed music videos. Second the music videos got licensed and went legit. Fourth the anti gay sermons got First Amendment protection under religious freedom.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @01:48PM
First they came for the unlicensed music videos. Second the music videos got licensed and went legit.
Third they came for low-quality videos of babies dancing. Really, those leeching baby pirate freeloaders asked for it, not paying a few paltry million $ to license 20 seconds of barely-audible music.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Wednesday June 15 2016, @05:48PM
i would like to point out that youtube is a private institution. also, this pastor has not been arrested, charged, put in jail or even told, "hey, you can't say that!" the only thing youtube did was remove it from their site for violating the terms of service.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday June 19 2016, @09:29PM
Indeed one must not forget about that.
You do not put video on the internet using youtube.
You put video into youtube and they are so kind to grab some rights over it and let people watch it, if you are nice.
But the point still remains, relevant quiz:
Q. YouTube motto is...?
1. Broadcast yourself
2. All your video are belong to us
3. Skip this ad in 5..4..3..2..1.. *click*
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @06:53AM
Do these count? Where's the line? Are we not allowed to upload say, speeches that Hitler gave?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Bot on Wednesday June 15 2016, @07:04AM
I see plenty of Hitler ranting on Youtube. In fact, I wonder how the German managed to get under the leadership of such a whiner. OTOH his opinions are usually sensible and his knowledge quite extended.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @08:07AM
OTOH his opinions are usually sensible and his knowledge quite extended
LOL. I'm sure his opinions sound sensible to you. After all, he was a populist, i.e. a "politician" whose primary audience are the parts of society who are too poorly educated or simply too dumb to grasp how the world works. Unfortunately, just because a large number of people believe the world should and could be simpler doesn't make it so, and the Reich had to go on an invasion spree to prevent economic collapse.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @08:42AM
He was a socialist, and many European countries actually implemented most parts of the NSDAP plan. Big whiner too.
So no surprise his speeches are still popular.
(Score: 3, Informative) by fritsd on Wednesday June 15 2016, @10:20AM
No.
In the words of my history teacher: "and if you mix up the SDAP [wikipedia.org] with the NSDAP [wikipedia.org], I will personally beat you up!" (this was an argumentum ad baculum [wikipedia.org] )
Many European countries actually implemented most parts of the NSDAP plan, because their pre-occupation government was replaced by Quislings [wikipedia.org].
(One of the posters on that page says: "Dutchmen! For your honour and conscience, come on! against Bolsjewism. The Waffen SS calls on you to join!")
Waffen SS != socialism. Duh.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday June 15 2016, @02:01PM
No, the "Socialist" part of their name was a blatant lie to get more votes.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bart9h on Wednesday June 15 2016, @01:30PM
woooooooooosh
(Score: 1) by arcz on Wednesday June 15 2016, @03:02PM
Hitler was quite logical. The problem is relying too much on logic. At the end of the day logic does not provide morality. Some emotional component, this is wrong, this is right, is required for that. Pure logic results in moral reletivism. Justice requires logic, but there are fundamental, non-logical fundamental emotional values that have to be accepted for that to work, that we want fairness, the greater good of society, and to not act hastily for example. But Hitler wasn't focused on fairness, patience, prudence, good of society, and etc. because he focused on only acheiving his goals like revenge, desire for power, etc.. Hitler logically acted to obtain his goals, but his goals were reprehensible.
Understanding that logic and justice are distinct concepts, is important.
(Score: 1) by ewibble on Thursday June 16 2016, @09:12PM
Logic and justice are not distinct, most moral need logic, otherwise you get things like being gay is bad because I say so. It harms no one to any significant extent so it is not bad. You need to apply logic to what people say otherwise you can too easily be swayed by emotion.
Here is logic for some of the big ones, they go pretty much the same:
Don't kill, if people are aloud to kill then we will have to spend our lives watching out, and defending ourselves from other people killing us, this is a huge waste resources.
This goes for stealing, honesty crimes as well, imagine people in general could trust what other people say, everything that anybody says to you would have to be independently verified, that would be a massive undertaking.
Most of the same, morals in the bible are ones that society work.
Hitler was not logical, he was populist. How can killing Jews, homosexuals logically help starving people with no food (Ok you kill off the population you have more for the remaining, but he had a scorched earth policy too). It can't, what it can do is get you support, people like blaming others for problems rather than looking inwards. What would have Hitler done once all his scapegoats where dead? Hitlers logic is not logic but an appeal to the emotions of fear and hate.
Look at America, blame the Mexicans, Muslims, Chinese for there economic problems, not the fact that they have lived beyond there means for decades. Or that they bombing other countries, and then complain when they get some causalities, who could have predicted that would happen?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 15 2016, @11:22AM
I would actually like to see that material. Do you know where it's viewable?
My whole life people described Hitler as a mesmerizing orator. Except I didn't speak German, and figured I wouldn't be able to tell even if I did see one of his speeches. Now, I do. A few years ago Netflix had "Triumph of the Will," and, being naturally curious, I watched it. It completely changed my perception of the Nazis from the Manichaean, cartoon-cutouts that a million Hollywood movies and TV shows had portrayed them as. They had a plan and a mission that was, for them, positive.
That convinced me that the Jewish-mediated perception of the Nazis we have received has in fact done a huge disservice to the world and has actually thereby made a repeat of Nazi attrocities more likely. That is, if you think the Nazis are some otherworldly evil, villainous aliens, then you will not be vigilant for the signs that our own perfectly reasonable actions and policies will lead to depravity. Case in point, the demonization of muslims that is currently being promulgated in America and many places in Europe is really not dissimilar from what was done to Jews, Gypsies, Communists, Homosexuals, the Handicapped, and Evangelical Christians before they were rounded up into camps.
So I would be interested to hear what Hitler said, in his own words, to sift for hooks and rationales that were crystallized into the policies that were carried out, so that I can look for the same around us, now. In my bones I feel like we're perilously close to damnation, but I'd like to know more exactly.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday June 15 2016, @11:53AM
If you haven't already, read "The Book Thief" by Markus Zusak. It portrays everyday life for ordinary (and extraordinary) people under the Nazis and it shows how the propaganda of the time had dug itself so deeply into peoples' hearts and thoughts.
It immerses you in wartime Munich in the same way that To Kill a Mockingbird, 12 years a Slave or The Grapes of Wrath transport you to a long-disappeared America. It is an original, beautiful and compelling book that has won plenty of awards. The only downside is that it is thoroughly, thoroughly depressing towards the end. And in the middle. And the beginning's pretty depressing too, come to think of it. But read it anyway, you won't regret it!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @01:07PM
Nazi attrocities
You have been brainwashed. No atrocities were ever committed by the Nazis. If you still think they were, then prove it. You need to prove that atrocities were committed. You really do. Otherwise, stop promoting myths and demonizing the innocent, and stop promoting Jews, who brainwashed you.
Today's demonization of muslims and others is done by the Jewish media, calling on you to do something about this 'problem' and 'send them back' etc. They want war and will do anything to get people to destroy each other, while they watch in anticipation of the end they desire: Total control over what is left.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday June 15 2016, @01:58PM
No atrocities were ever committed by the Nazis. If you still think they were, then prove it.
Funny, that's exactly what Eisenhower addressed when he saw the concentration camps.
The visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were so overpowering as to leave me a bit sick. In one room, where they [there] were piled up twenty or thirty naked men, killed by starvation, George Patton would not even enter. He said he would get sick if he did so. I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to 'propaganda'."
There's a couple other quotes in the same vein on the page [archives.gov] if you* want more.
*and if it were likely to do any good
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @02:43PM
There is a video out there, that addresses your concerns of concentration camp deaths and eisenhower's lies:
"Buchenwald a Dumb Dumb Portrayal of Evil"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HlPcaP9x5o [youtube.com]
The video is long, and you might want to clear your mind before starting. It could change your perception of history.
*and if it were likely to do any good
If the above video does not change your views, then the same can be said of you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @03:16PM
Come on, jmorris, log in when you post this :p
(Score: 3, Interesting) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday June 15 2016, @01:38PM
Hear, hear.
I have always thought the cartoonish characterization made of Hitler and the Nazis have made them look more like comic book villains than an actual political movement. I get that people want to make fun of Hitler and the Nazis as some sort of coping mechanism to deal with the atrocities they committed. But that detracts from the events that lead up to the Germans accepting such a political ideal. I'm sure Hitler was the 1920's/30' alt-right and like other anti-establishment rabble rousers, got the people's attention. Lather, rinse, repeat.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday June 15 2016, @02:33PM
It's just what people do. I mean seriously, how often do you hear suicide bombers described in absolute terms of evil or stupidity rather than as human beings who started off with the same promise and potential as everyone else, but somehow were guided down a path of destruction? How often are pedophiles described as absolute evil, rather than troubled people with unhealthy urges that they can't control?
There is no "pure evil" outside of popular entertainment or religious texts. People who do terrible things always do them for a reason- sometimes they think in their own heads they are doing good, sometimes they are driven by desperation or by personal demons or circumstances that are beyond their powers to contain. However it's more comfortable to simply distance ourselves from such people, to declare ourselves different rather than trying to understand them, trying to see what they have in common with everyone else. It's quicker and easier to simply label people as evil and then rejoice in their misery or destruction rather than examine their motives and try to use that information to prevent future tragedies.
This is one of the reasons humanity is doomed to repeat the mistakes of history over and over again - people are too ready to delude themselves that "it will be different this time" because they see history in a different light to the present.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @02:53PM
The absolute evil they say of Nazis is for a reason.
Because Nazis were great people who never committed any crime of any kind whatsoever.
So its safe for the Jews and their minions to call "absolute evil" because the Jews themselves are the evil.
Calling someone absolute evil can be dangerous in case the person is really evil. But calling National Socialists evil defies logic, the laws of physics, the laws of mathematics, and is a crime against reason.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday June 16 2016, @02:36AM
how often do you hear suicide bombers described in absolute terms of evil or stupidity rather than as human beings who started off with the same promise and potential as everyone else
Usually I hear suicide bombers described by people from the countries that are bombing that of the suiciders, yet the describers throw up their hands and say we just don't know why these people hate us. They sometimes go on to say something about Coca-Cola or Wal-Mart or scantily clad women or freedom, but they only definitive thing is "we just don't know." It apparently has nothing to do with the bombings, wars, and drone strikes Western governments are carrying on in the middle east. The suicidal Japanese fighters were the same way - noone could explain it, it was probably just that they aren't like us.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @07:07AM
The banality of evil [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday June 16 2016, @09:08AM
That's a good link, thanks.
I've come across that phrase before, and it struck me that it occurs to George W Bush. He kind of faded away from public view after leaving the Whitehouse, so I googled him up a while back to see what he was up to. bear in mind that when he was in power he started illegal wars, and was culpable for torture and kidnapping and thousands upon thousands of pointless deaths. He funnelled vast amounts of taxpayer money into the back pockets of crooks, villains and mercenaries. He must have had some awesome masterplan that he was working towards. Maybe he needed all that money to build a secret hideout in an extinct volcano, or maybe he has an exorbitant hookers+blow lifestyle to fund, or perhaps he believes spilling the blood of innocents will grant him eternal life via elaborate satanic rituals...
No.
You want to know how this dickhead is spending his retirement? He plays bridge and paints pictures of his dogs.
For fuck's sake, if that's your ultimate ambition, you don't need to murder a hundred thousand Iraqis to realise it. You can spend 40 years as a shoe salesman and then retire comfortably with cards and oil paints. What was all that death and destruction ultimately for, if that's all you're going to do with the fruits of your wickedness? What a prick.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @07:03AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEqa90XpPw0 [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whU2qFd89fA [youtube.com]
It's not like this type of hypocrisy isn't widespread, but fuck if you don't look like some pandering shits in the face of it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @08:27AM
As usual with large corporations its not hypocrisy, just the effect of having a PR team. Any other time and that fool's rants would still be up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @08:41AM
Censorship of non-copyrighted material on YouTube is frequent and random. This story means nothing.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday June 15 2016, @08:56PM
There is no such thing as non-copyrighted material. On YouTube or anywhere else.
The moment you create something in a fixed tangible medium of expression, such as a digital file, it has copyright. Not when you first think it. But the moment it is in fixed tangible form such as written down, recorded, etc.
If I make a video of myself picking my nose, I have a copyright on that video instantly. If I upload it to YouTube, I still have a copyright on it. By uploading it, I have authorized YouTube to be able to play it. You have no permission to use my video unless you have something called a "License".
The word "license" means "permission". Like fishing license. Hunting license. Drivers license. Dog license. Liquor License. Copyright License. Patent License. Etc.
A license (eg, permission) may be obtained sometimes for payment by using an Agreement (or Contract). The agreement may state that certain conditions must be met in order for the license to be valid. Such as the payment of money in exchange for a license (aka "consideration"). Such as you can only play the video on days of the week ending in "y", and only in quiet locations. Other times a license is given without an agreement or consideration, as long as you comply with the terms of the license, such as open source or creative commons licenses.
The anti vax hysteria didn't stop, it just died down.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @01:20PM
The one about Palestine is just. It isn't nice living in an open prison and getting shot randomly and getting bombed and being burned alive.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by ticho on Wednesday June 15 2016, @08:56AM
I see nothing wrong with it. Youtube is a privately-owned commercial site. If you don't want your videos to be censored, start your own youtube, with your own rules (and hookers, and blackjack).
(Score: 2) by mtrycz on Wednesday June 15 2016, @09:08AM
Exactly. Youtube isn't to be held to be the guaranteer of free speech. There's also a revelant xkcd somewhere.
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 4, Informative) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday June 15 2016, @11:14AM
relevant xkcd [xkcd.com]
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by korger on Wednesday June 15 2016, @08:10PM
XKCD is technically right about free speech, but misses an important point: that by its own definition, namely that free speech means that the Government can't arrest you for what you say, free speech is really useless. For what good is Government not being able to arrest us, if zealots not associated to the Government can kill us or at least make us unemployable, if they don't like what we are saying? If the 1st Amendment does not protect us from the worst outcomes, then it's worthless. XKCD tries to spin it that the only thing that may happen is that others stop listening, but there's plenty of evidence that it's a lot worse than that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @09:27AM
So, let the few corporations make their own laws... Oh! wait!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Capt. Obvious on Wednesday June 15 2016, @09:36AM
It's not really private. It's a public website hosted by a company that claims to be content neutral to take advantage of Safe Harbor immunity while being built (esp. originally) on copyright infringement.
(Score: 2) by ticho on Wednesday June 15 2016, @12:29PM
Private != privately owned. And they are far from content-neutral these days. See all the automated takedowns in past few years, and drama around it.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @01:11PM
If they were anywhere near content-neutral, they would have around 70% porn.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jdavidb on Wednesday June 15 2016, @02:54PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday June 15 2016, @05:52PM
Where do they claim that?
The only claim I see is what's in black and white on their website:
We encourage free speech and try to defend your right to express unpopular points of view, but we don't permit hate speech. Hate speech refers to content that promotes violence or hatred against individuals or groups based on certain attributes, such as: race or ethnic origin religion disability gender age veteran status sexual orientation/gender identity
Some actual claims. [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @01:23PM
When a business becomes systemically important, then the government of the nation where such organization operates has to take action to ensure the well-being of the nation and other friendly nations, while ensuring that the truth is not suppressed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday June 15 2016, @02:26PM
Monopoly public utilities should be regulated or nationalized.
Businesses that don't want to be regulated or nationalized merely have to avoid becoming monopoly public utilities, its not that hard.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mcgrew on Wednesday June 15 2016, @04:55PM
Only natural monopolies like water, gas, sewer, electricity, internet access. If your "monopoly" is simply because you do a better job than everyone else, the government should stay out of the way.
That said, if your monopoly comes from buying all your competetitors, government should step in and prevent it from happening.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 4, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Wednesday June 15 2016, @10:04AM
Here is another perfect example of someone in a position of power using their imaginary "god" to try and push their own views. Yep just, use you imaginary sky fairy to pull any arbitrary rule you want out of your arse. And the drooling morons out there will happily believe this idiot.
Well, I've got a message for this blathering retard: Anyone who teaches children to ignore the scientific realities of the universe in favor of religious make-believe is the equivalent of a mental child molester and should be locked up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @12:01PM
As opposed to a company using their position of power to play-up a marketing coup.
And the drooling morons out there will happily believe this is about "hate speech".
(Score: 5, Informative) by SomeGuy on Wednesday June 15 2016, @12:48PM
Yes, yes. Or as opposed to major media companies twisting facts to further their political agendas and rake in advertising dollars.
But unfortunately companies, and media are quite real. It is possible to perform scientific experiments on them to prove they exist.
On a side note, you may notice that the media is taking every opportunity to label the shooter as an Islamic terrorist. While pedantically he succeeded at becoming a terrorist and made statements about Islamic stuff, it seems he was not related to any such organization and there is a good chance that was all just an excuse for cover his own instabilities and inadequacies. Of course, even that is just based on the spoon-fed media information. But the agenda here is that we must increase spending on security and surveillance while ignoring mental health and social programs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @01:17PM
In a way, the shooter has been an absolute gift.
EVERYBODY can hang their personal agenda on the corpses. From the right's fearmongering about terrorism to everything from homophobia to gun control.
I'm in frequent contact with some Nation of Islam members, and even they were spinning this as a false flag so that blacks could be persecuted even more. Amazing!
And of course if you worship an Abrahamic god, you are no doubt in some way responsible.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday June 15 2016, @02:25PM
and there is a good chance that was all just an excuse for cover his own instabilities and inadequacies
None of that matters in the ongoing propaganda war.
For example if a white cop shoots a black suspect, stuff automatically hits the fan racially. Private life or special situations don't matter, in the bigger propaganda war its just another white cop shooting another black kid.
I mean it matters in a certain abstract sense why an individual did something, especially to the individuals involved.
But for 99% of the population its just an anecdote in the propaganda war and from that point of view all that matters is the demographics. For the zillionth time, attacker is Moslem, victim is gay, and there's endless hand wringing about how to not stand up to protect the inevitable future victims, if we pretend there's no problem maybe it won't happen again, etc.
In the progressive pecking order Moslems rank higher than gays, like it or not. Personally, if I had to have one, I'd rather have the gays, but to say I'm not progressive would be an understatement so that doesn't matter.
But, unfortunately, the problem will happen until its fixed, as is the case with most problems. Either Moslem extremism has to go, or the gays have to go, or we can watch bodies stack up. There is no 4th alternative. There are various debatable alternatives for "Moslem extremism has to go" or maybe even "the gays have to go". Its not binary of course, and we could get rid of both.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 15 2016, @12:35PM
"Position of power?" Does said pastor have the ability to order the police to shoot gays on sight, and have them obey that order? Or do you really mean, the pastor's a guy who can say words, and that equals "power?"
Me, when I hear about people like this I think that person is a terrible pastor because they've completely missed the central message of Christ, which is love, and the central responsibility of a Christian, which is to bear that love to the world. People who hearken to a message like the pastor's are also missing the central point of Christianity; they want to appropriate the power of Christ and use it as a club to beat on other people.
It's an equal mistake to tar all Christians with the same brush. While it's true that Christ has been used as a club, the people who did so would have used any convenient excuse to do so. If the narrative had been on the virtues of canteloupes, the same actions would have been undertaken in the name of canteloupes. Do you hold Stalin's crimes up as equal proof of the folly and abomination of atheism? If not, why not? Is it because you firmly believe in Non-God? Do you hold up China's failure as an atheist nation to positively intervene in the world, to feed the hungry and mediate between warring parties and give billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid to build infrastructure, educate, and ameliorate poverty in the 3rd world as evidence that atheism is no positive force in the world? If not, why not? Is it because you choose to believe in the evil of faith and the virtue of science's failure to disprove its theories (remember: in science there is no "proof", only "failure to disprove")?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Wednesday June 15 2016, @01:10PM
No, not as much power as some. You are thinking too direct. He doesn't have to "order" anyone to do anything. Perhaps there are some police officers in the group of people that he preaches this stuff to. Or friends/family of police officers. Some of them hear and believe what he said. These people then slowly spread this belief indirectly through their actions.
And then years down the road, some cop may pull his trigger way too soon because someone threating him also happened to be gay.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 15 2016, @02:17PM
Yeah, but how is that different from you or me? I say something strongly felt, clearly worded in my graduate seminar and sometime later that triggers somebody who was in the room to do something awful?
If speech is a crime, if thought is a crime, then let's cut our tongues out, suture our lips shut, chop off our hands, and lobotomize ourselves so can never again have such power to influence others.
I abhor racism. I despise hate speech. The mindset that begets them is timid, curdled in sloth, and a pure projection of total self-hatred. But it is far more dangerous and damaging to censor it outright. The proper response, the only response, is to answer with vigor and the bright heat of reasoned scorn.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday June 16 2016, @02:45AM
I abhor racism. I despise hate speech. The mindset that begets them is timid, curdled in sloth, and a pure projection of total self-hatred. But it is far more dangerous and damaging to censor it outright. The proper response, the only response, is to answer with vigor and the bright heat of reasoned scorn.
But if they want to engage in the hate speech in my living room one proper response is for me to deny them access. And if they want to engage in the hate speech in a seminar I'm putting on one proper response is for me to not sign them up with the other speakers I am engaging. I have that right because they don't have the right to engage in their speech at my expense. Freedom of speech is grounded in freedom of the press. Today a "press" is very very affordable indeed and any bigot who wants to can obtain a cheap "press" and engage in whatever speech they desire. Certainly some people want to have a free for all uncensored discussion, but other people want to be left alone according to whatever standards they choose even if others don't feel those standards are consistent or advisable.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday June 15 2016, @03:16PM
Do you hold up China's failure as an atheist nation to positively intervene in the world, to feed the hungry and mediate between warring parties and give billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid to build infrastructure, educate, and ameliorate poverty in the 3rd world
This is just dumb. China *is* 3rd-world, and has been for a long time. 30 years ago they were a backwater mostly, and not a manufacturing powerhouse. Their country was full of abject poverty. Now they have a huge and growing middle class. They've done a lot in ameliorating poverty in their own country and building an enormous amount of infrastructure there.
I thought (Protestant at least) Christians were all about self-help.... China has done a pretty remarkable job of helping itself out of being a poverty-stricken 3rd-world backwater in a fairly short time.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 15 2016, @05:22PM
No, China is not a 3rd world country. Technically it was 2nd world [wikipedia.org], aka "Socialist." Today they have the second largest GDP in the world. You don't think they could afford to help others in the actual 3rd world if they wanted to? Countries like Germany and Japan do, and their economies are smaller than China's.
Everyone helps themselves. The merest tribe in the Amazonian rainforest will help its own. But Christians have always emphasized helping others (whether they always do that or not is a different question entirely). China helps no one but itself.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday June 15 2016, @04:31PM
I'm so tired of this "yeah butbutbut atheists did evil shit too!" meme. Pisses me off and I'm not even an atheist. Atheism is not a belief; it's a lack of one. MOST atheists, from what I've seen, are also some form of humanist, though I've run into plenty of Randroids and even a few complete nihilists among them.
People like Stalin, if you ask me, actually had secular religions (cults of personality). Remember Stalin had seminary training; this is why his speeches sounded a bit religious. What Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, and any religious demagogue all have in common is that they knew how to energize and work a crowd, to put them into a suggestive state and rewrite some of their social programming.
And the key point here is that these people did not do what they did in the name of atheism; indeed, they had an almost religious belief in ways history "must" play out (see dialectic materialism, etc). Whereas our shooter here very obviously did what he did in the name of Islam; specifically, what Islam says about gay people, which seems to have included him.
Do you see the difference? Atheism was a tool in the kit of people like Stalin, at most; religion is the central thesis in how Omar Mateen and his Christian counterparts acted.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 15 2016, @05:14PM
Please note that I'm not bashing atheists or atheism. But if a person is going to tar every member of a religion because of the actions of some members of a religion, then isn't it fair to do that for atheism, too?
I agree with your characterization of Stalin, Mao, and other despots who were atheists. But that's parsing atheism and saying, well, but those guys were the bad atheists; all atheists are not bad. To me that sounds like saying, well, but those muslims/christians/jews were bad muslims/christians/jews, but they don't speak for all the rest. If it's fair to draw that distinction for atheism, then why is it not fair to do the same for people who believe in a god of some kind?
I believe that you're right, that atheism was a tool in the kit of people like Stalin, but that same is true of people who use religion (pick your flavor) as a tool in their kit to beat up on others, which is what I'm saying. People who mean to do evil to others will use anything to help them do it.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @06:46PM
But that's parsing atheism and saying, well, but those guys were the bad atheists; all atheists are not bad.
No, it's saying that all those countries didn't commit those horrible acts in the name of atheism. There just isn't much there, because it's simply the absence of a particular belief. On the other hand, religions make countless claims and it's easy to control people by saying they should do X, Y, and Z in the name of the religion, all while backing it up with selective quotes from some supposed holy book.
Of course not all atheists are bad. Not all Christians, Muslims, etc. are bad either. Pretty much everyone realizes this.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday June 15 2016, @07:08PM
AC below you nailed it. There is nothing in atheism, qua atheism, that leads someone to do this kind of thing. Whereas there is a hell of a lot in Islam and Christianity that leads its followers to do everything from casual discrimination to genocide.
It's not like the-conspicuous-lack-of-God is ordering atheists to kill people for not being atheists. But Yahweh cultists have invented some very creative and drawn-out forms of torturous death for people who don't believe in Yahweh, or who do things the scripture supposedly Yahweh-breathed says deserve death, cf. Leviticus 20:13 I believe.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 15 2016, @10:15PM
Well, how do you define atheism? I've seen it expressed in many different flavors. Some interpret it as humanism, others as a straightforward, "I don't believe in god." Others reject the judeo-christian values that Western civilization is built on. Other varieties of atheists called communists have definitely killed people of faith for having faith. Nietzsche was a prominent atheist philosopher whose ideas exercised a strong influence upon the Nazis, who definitely killed lots of people of faith.
Ahh, but *that* atheism is the bad atheism. *My* atheism is the good atheism, right? Yes, exactly.
There are passages in the Old Testament of the Bible, the Koran, and other holy books that are disturbing. The New Testament and Christians rather focus on the teachings of Christ therein. Christ never preached torture and death for people who didn't believe in him. I don't have a definitive list at hand, but in my experience most Christians who use Christ as a club typically reference passages in the Old Testament, which contains nothing about Christ. The Yahweh cultists are responsible for that part of the Bible, so perhaps questions about what they're about are better directed to them. Christ himself preached a message of love and inclusion.
What values does atheism preach? Does it extol the virtue of clipping coupons before going to the market? Does it condemn killing others unless you're sure you can get away with it? Or does it pick and choose the positive set within judeo-christian values inherited in Western civilization and recommend you live your life according to those? Or does it have no value system at all, because that would be too religion-like? If you're assembling the set of moral principles for yourself that feel right to you, then congratulations you're doing exactly what the vast majority of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and every other person of faith I've ever known also do. Occasionally you get the poindexters who try to live by the literal word of those faiths, and mostly everyone else avoids them as inflexible, insufferable dicks.
Personally, I'm a Christian and believe in God because my set of life experiences has proven to me that there is a higher power at work. For most of my life I did not believe that. As a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic, I can still certainly understand the atheist perspective. I can understand it as a rejection of god, and also as a "I simply don't care" variety, too. Everybody's on their own journey through existence. Be happy, and please be kind to everyone else along the way.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday June 16 2016, @05:33AM
Your experiences show a higher power. So do mine. The difference is, I know enough of comparative religion, church history, apologetics, COUNTER-apologetics, and theology to know that that higher power is not the Abrahamic God.
The criteria for being God held by the Abrahamic religions are internally contradictory ANYWAY, not to mention contradictory to observable reality, and even if they weren't, the very collection of books that are our ONLY record of Yahweh, the Abrahamic God, explicitly disconfirms that he has those properties necessary to BE God. I really think you've fallen victim to sloppy thinking here, not least because the entire central thesis of Christianity is insane. If this Yahweh fellow exists, he's some kind of evil spirit, demon, maybe even an evil alien, but definitely not God.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday June 16 2016, @03:02PM
There's no need to be insulting. You have particular issues with the judeo-christian god. OK, that's fine by me. The passages in the Bible that appall you appall me too, most likely.
For example, I find it particularly ironic that a people who practiced widespread genocide against those who occupied Judea before them should complain so loudly when the same sort of widespread genocide was practiced on them, especially when since they have regained that general swath of territory they have reverted to type and have resume genocide against others.
But there is an ethos to Christianity that appeals to me. It makes provision for those who are not Christian, even those who are not Christian and don't want to be Christian. I can't really name any other faith or philosophy that makes provision for people outside the fold. If you're a Jew, you'll go to the mat for a fellow Jew, but god forbid you should be a gentile. Likewise Islam. If you're a muslim, you're bound seven ways to Sunday to provide for them; everyone else, put to the sword. Atheists, it's kind of every man for himself.
The difference is that belief systems that limit their esteem and charity to those within the belief system beget tribes, but those that extend those to everyone regardless of religion or tribe, beget civilization and progress.
If you're an atheist enjoying a life of atheism in a Western society, then it is exactly because you are embedded within a larger Christian ethos that enables such things. You would have scant luck trying the same in Saudi Arabia or Israel. There, you would be dead, in prison, or if you're really lucky, you'd have rocks thrown at you.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday June 16 2016, @05:12PM
Of course you believe your God is going to throw everyone who doesn't kiss his ineffable ass into Hell where they'll scream and broil and writhe and roast and weep and crackle and sizzle for alllllllll eternity, and you're fine with that, aren't'cha?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday June 16 2016, @08:01PM
Me? No, not at all. If you want to project that kind of sectarian hatred onto me, go ahead. But that's all about you and your resentments and has nothing to do with me at all.
In real life my set of friends includes atheists, jews, muslims, buddhists, druse, hindus, and even a zoroastrian. I have no problem with that. In fact i relish their insights into worldviews radically different from what i grew up with.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday June 16 2016, @08:16PM
I'm litmus-testing you, spaz. So, you don't believe in your religion's vision of Hell; good, because most of the early church fathers didn't either, and I'd argue the inability of Latin to well and truly convey the difference between the concepts Koine Greek glosses with kolasis, timoria, aionios, and aidios was behind a lot of that.
That said, how do you justify going against the grain on such a fundamental matter of doctrine for your religion? Understand that if you are wrong, your religion says YOU will go to Hell, and there is no escape and no mercy.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday June 15 2016, @09:03PM
Atheism is not a belief; it's a lack of one.
Wouldn't that be agnostic? An atheist claims there is no god. This statement cannot be proven, for the simple fact that "god" is not well defined. As soon as you prove something doesn't exist, believers can amend their definition of "god" in order to keep it possible.
Since the statement can't be proven, atheists *believe* that there is no god, while agnostics would not claim any knowledge on that topic and therefore do not believe in any god.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday June 15 2016, @09:30PM
Sooooort of. I usually express this as a dual-axis statement: atheism/theism on the X axis as a belief claim, and gnosticism/agnosticism on the Y axis as a knowledge claim. So that gives us gnostic and agnostic theists, and gnostic and agnostic atheists. Most atheists are agnostic atheists; I suspect there are very few who are epistemilogically arrogant enough to claim perfect knowledge that there is nothing, anywhere, in any way shape or form that matches any definition of God, though it is perfectly reasonable to express gnostic atheism about *specific* God-concepts.
I would technically be an agnostic theist, though this is only because deism, pantheism, panpsychism, etc. all get lumped into the "theist" half of the coordinate plane here.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday June 15 2016, @09:07PM
I was with you right up till "but but but Stalin!"
Staling being an asshole an an atheist does not make your god right or likely to exist.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 15 2016, @09:35PM
Well there is no atheist equivalent to the Pope. Stalin, being a charismatic figure pushing an ideology that espouses, among other things, atheism, was a handy, somewhat suitable analog.
If it's fair to pan all Christians because of what past Popes have done, as was done, then why is it not fair to pan all atheists for the misdeeds of others in the name of atheism? But if Stalin doesn't work for you as an example of that, then how about Mao and his Red Guards, who burned, blasted, and destroyed countless, priceless works of religious art?
But note that I am not arguing that Stalin (or some other prominent atheist you might prefer) was bad, that therefore atheism is bad. I'm not. I'm saying don't do that to Christians/Muslims/Jews/whatever, either.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Sunday June 19 2016, @12:02AM
Ahh, you are using it as an analogy. That makes sense.
But Stalin wasn't the "leader of atheism" where the pope is the leader of at least a large faction of Christianity, so that makes it kind of a false dichotomy.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @01:56PM
They should have left it there just so anyone could see what kind of dick this pastor is.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday June 15 2016, @02:43PM
Agree. I haven't watched the sermon (not sure if I need to). I always like it when people are up-front and honest about their bigotry instead of hiding behind code words like “family values” and bullshitting about how they really feel.
WaPo article is full of all kinds of “faith leaders” condemning this guy. Probably plenty of Imams condemning the shooter to be found elsewhere.
Guess what? This preacher isn't alone. Baptists and in particular Southern Christian Identity followers are likely all thinking the same thing across the nation. And they're better armed than the shooter, particularly the ones who got butthurt after Y2K when man Jesus didn't descend from the clouds and lead them in glorious battle against the infidels.
Christianity, the religion of peace!
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday June 15 2016, @05:04PM
Baptists and in particular Southern Christian Identity followers are likely all thinking the same thing across the nation. And they're better armed than the shooter
If you openly speak and act the opposite of what Christ spoke, you're not a Christian, you are a "wolf in sheep's clothing." Jesus said to love everyone and judge no one, and that he who lives by the deadly weapon dies by the deadly weapon (statistics back him up, gun owners are murdered twice as often as unarmed people).
Gays are no more sinful that me. Everyone sins, that's why Jesus was executed -- so you don't have to be executed.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday June 15 2016, @06:33PM
That was my take-away from the Gospels in general as well. Wolves in sheep's clothing is a fancy no true Scotsman argument.
Arguments about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin aside, I'm informed that the names of gays are retroactively removed from the book of life, and thus according to Revelation, it's the lake of fire for gays! Apparently this white throne judgement thingy invalidates anything about Jesus' sacrifice.
Beware! Your name might be removed from the book of life, too, if you don't hate the gays enough! Never-ending torment by fire, unending agonizing torture worse than anything you could possibly imagine [xkcd.com]! You'll have no mouth, and you must scream!
But I'd rather rewatch End of Evangelion than go down that rabbit hole ever again.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday June 16 2016, @03:04PM
I just now pulled up Revelations in by browser and searched for the word "sodomy". It isn't there. "Sodom" is, it's the place the beast rises from.
I keep telling Christians not to listen to men, but to read their bibles themselves.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday June 17 2016, @04:24PM
I remember that's how my ex-father started out. He didn't listen to men. When he had finished, he concluded that pretty much every denomination and church were actually devil worshipers and money changers. Then he just needed a nudge to find evidence that I was actually a shape-shifting demon (not much different from a lizard person!) from the burning hells who had murdered not just one of his children, but several of his un-conceived grandchildren as well. I forget the exact line of evidence. He's not alone in that regard.
Personally, I prefer The Message [biblegateway.com]. Revelation 11:1–14 from that version:
I was given a stick for a measuring rod and told, “Get up and measure God’s Temple and Altar and everyone worshiping in it. Exclude the outside court; don’t measure it. It’s been handed over to non-Jewish outsiders. They’ll desecrate the Holy City for forty-two months.
“Meanwhile, I’ll provide my two Witnesses. Dressed in sackcloth, they’ll prophesy for 1,260 days. These are the two Olive Trees, the two Lampstands, standing at attention before God on earth. If anyone tries to hurt them, a blast of fire from their mouths will incinerate them—burn them to a crisp just like that. They’ll have power to seal the sky so that it doesn’t rain for the time of their prophesying, power to turn rivers and springs to blood, power to hit earth with any and every disaster as often as they want.
“When they’ve completed their witness, the Beast from the Abyss will emerge and fight them, conquer and kill them, leaving their corpses exposed on the street of the Great City spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, the same City where their Master was crucified. For three and a half days they’ll be there—exposed, prevented from getting a decent burial, stared at by the curious from all over the world. Those people will cheer at the spectacle, shouting ‘Good riddance!’ and calling for a celebration, for these two prophets pricked the conscience of all the people on earth, made it impossible for them to enjoy their sins.
“Then, after three and a half days, the Living Spirit of God will enter them—they’re on their feet!—and all those gloating spectators will be scared to death.”
I heard a strong voice out of Heaven calling, “Come up here!” and up they went to Heaven, wrapped in a cloud, their enemies watching it all. At that moment there was a gigantic earthquake—a tenth of the city fell to ruin, seven thousand perished in the earthquake, the rest frightened to the core of their being, frightened into giving honor to the God-of-Heaven.
The second doom is past, the third doom coming right on its heels.
So many people hoping they're one of those witnesses, hoping for that earthquake, desperate for man Jesus to come down out of the clouds and show everybody else how wicked they are, eager to become martyrs.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday June 15 2016, @07:12PM
Soooooo, if I understand this right: your God sacrificed his son, who is also himself, TO himself, to STOP himself from throwing his own creations, whom he knew would sin and how before he created them, into the Hell he also freely chose to create but didn't have to (and never told the Jews about; no, he left that to the pagan Persians and Greeks...).
And because he is omnipotent, transcendent, immutable, and absolutely-sovereign, no being can possibly harm him in any way shape or form, which means he is deliberately choosing to take offense at the things he knew his creations would do before he created them.
...yeah, makes perfect sense. Sounds like an abusive husband: "Why do you MAKE ME send you to Hell^W^W^W^W hit you?!"
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday June 15 2016, @09:12PM
Christians will tell you "nooo, you send yourself to hell!"
Oh, do I? Ok, then I choose not to go to hell no matter what my life choices are. "nooo you will go to hell for that!"
The religious fundamentalists are beyond reason.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday June 15 2016, @09:38PM
Yup, and they're completely missing the point too: regardless of who does the sending, if it weren't there in the first fucking place, this would be a non-issue. You're unfortunately correct: fundamentalists are completely beyond reason, mostly because they've been hijacked by some sort of unchecked stolen concept fallacy with regards to their epistemology.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mcgrew on Thursday June 16 2016, @03:09PM
The trouble with fundamentalists is that they don't seem to grasp the fundamentals.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Sunday June 19 2016, @12:03AM
Fundamentalists are, however, quite mental.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday June 16 2016, @03:07PM
He's the programmer of the simulation you think the universe is, and you're just a subroutine. Also, don't forget that Abraham was to sacrifice HIS own son and God stopped him. You should never ask someone to undergo pain you're not willing to undergo.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday June 16 2016, @05:11PM
I have news for you, Mr. McGrew; Jesus' death was not a "sacrifice." It was a shitty weekend, after which he (re)gained Godhood. I would let someone crucify me in exchange for that.
Congratulations on completely missing the fucking point, as your kind always do.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday June 15 2016, @07:18PM
If you openly speak and act the opposite of what Christ spoke, you're not a Christian, you are a "wolf in sheep's clothing."
Right, except that the bible contains so many fun things and interpretations that you can use it to justify just about anything. This is just a No True Christian argument.
Some people say only the New Testament matters anymore, but there is also plenty of debate about that. It's also not as if the New Testament doesn't have its share of evil shit.
Jesus said to love everyone and judge no one, and that he who lives by the deadly weapon dies by the deadly weapon (statistics back him up, gun owners are murdered twice as often as unarmed people).
And also supposedly told slaves to obey their masters. Let's not ignore all the bad parts.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday June 16 2016, @03:13PM
What Christ said defines Christianity.
And also supposedly told slaves to obey their masters
Chapter and verse or it's a falsegood.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 2, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday June 15 2016, @09:10PM
I am with you here. My feelings on censorship are "give them enough rope to hang themselves".
This is my problem with the people protesting Trump trying to prevent him from speaking. Let the guy speak, he will do enough to harm his own cause when he opens his fat mouth.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday June 15 2016, @04:34PM
I don't like this. The best defense against bad ideas is 1) better ideas and 2) protection "on the ground."
People like this shitdrip already have a massive persecution complex, and huge egos to boot; all this is going to do is add fuel to the smoldering trash fire that is this man's worldview,
Know what they hate? Ridicule. People this far in the grip of identity politics take ridicule of their beliefs like a personal attack on their bodies.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...