As Russia Expands Its 'Think Of The Children' Laws To Copyright, Agency In Charge Investigated For Infringement

Comcast NBC Universal Already Moving Past Six Strikes; Trying New Malware Popups Urging Downloaders To Buy

Pat Robertson: Murder Committed In Video Games Is No Different Than Real Life Murder

from the everyone-is-going-to-hell dept

Tue, Aug 6th 2013 5:46am — Timothy Geigner

If you aren't a certain Christian denomination or a zillion years old, you may not be too familiar with Pat Robertson. Minister Robertson is the man behind The 700 Club, which is apparently still on the air, as well as the Chancellor of Regent University, a former presidential candidate, and an author. Amongst his other accomplishments was incorrectly predicting the end of the world in 1982 (though that is the year I was born. Hmm...), praying away hurricanes, calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez (for Jesus!) and basically indicating that most natural disasters and terrorist attacks of late come strictly as a result of all our sinful ways, which is to say acting in any way Pat Robertson didn't specifically tell us to. That last bit should now be taking on an epically more terrifying hue of fear, given how Robertson recently answered an emailed question on his television program.

Holy shit (get it?). Should you be unable to see the embedded video, the question asked how sins are assessed in video games. Robertson answered by quoting The Nazarene as saying that lusting after a woman was the same as committing adultery (Yay! Thought crime!). Building off of that, Robertson suggested that "that's a virtual sin, if you play one of those [violent/salacious] video games" before gleefully stating he's never played a video game in his life. Then, to drive the point home, he brings up Grand Theft Auto and says "if you murder someone in cyber-space, in a sense you're performing the act whether you like it or not."

Hoo-boy. Here I was, going about my day, looking up obscure trademark and copyright stories while thinking up penis-jokes, all the while I had no idea that I've committed more murders than Stalin. And I did it gleefully. And it isn't just murder I'm guilty of either. Think of the number of animal abuse charges that could be leveled at me for all those turtles I stomped on in Super Mario Bros., or the genocides I've committed in Mass Effect. And, yeah, I've played GTA too, and you don't even want to know the stuff I've done in that game.

If all these are sins equal to their real-life counterparts, there's got to be a terrorist attack or tsunami bearing down on me at this exact moment. Or, perhaps we shouldn't be asking the elderly and willfully ignorant how they assess what we do in video games. Otherwise, we'll just get the same responses we've received about nearly every other form of entertainment before they became commonplace.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: murder, pat robertson, sins, video games

312 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 4:27am

Holy shit! (*giggles*) Hittler would blush if he saw my assassination count!

And the moles, chickens I've kicked around! Or the girls I raped in those sick Japanese games (Rapelay comes to mind as the classic example)!

And the people I've killed while speeding with my car (Carmagedon)! Children, women and the elderly are worth double the points! If you kill a pregnant woman you get triple score (I think?)!

And the sin of the sins, I played GOD my friends. I devastated entire cities with my mighty power, enslaved people and ordered my servants to commit mass murder, raping and pillage (Black & White, Sandbox)!

No really, being a sinner is fun. Mr Robertson can go sodomize himself with a retractable baton.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 6:17am
  
  Re:
  I thought I was relatively OK, until I remembered that suicide is also a sin.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:00am
    
    Re: Re:
    Oh yeah, that too. I suicided quite a few times. My favorites are those Burnout crashes where I suicide with my car and take several people along.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 9:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      For me, pressing start is tantamount to suicide.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rafael, 1 Sep 2013 @ 1:29pm
  
  Re:
  YHWH never allows that, as a matter of fact 10 Commandments forbid slavery, The 8th Commandment translated do not steal is actually Do not Kidnap as the Hebrew word is Ganab, the 10th Commandment word covet is hebrew Chamad, which actually means Take
  
  Also the "genocides" are interpolations, whenever a Minority of text contradicts a Majority(and I mean Majority here) then it's not the intent/purpose/events of text, Especially considering that you cannot form a story with these minor text, the evil text are Interpolation, most likely from scribes.
  
  No problem with The Bible, Lust is not a sin savedbychrist94.blogspot.com/2013/04/lust-is-not-sin.html and Homosexuality is not a sin, savedbychrist94.blogspot.com/2013/04/homosexuality-is-not-sin-part-1.html
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 5:49am

As far as Pat Robertson goes, there's just no fixing that degree of stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 6:02am

Why would anyone care?
Anyone of even minimal intelligence is fully aware that Pat Robertson is an insane, stupid, senile asshole. Why should you or I or any of the other superior people care about anything he ever says or does?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:00am
  
  Re: Why would anyone care?
  Problem is: a lot of people without that minimum can and do vote.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:20am
  
  Re: Why would anyone care?
  He has an audience. Of what size I'm not sure, but unless I'm mistaken, it's fairly sizeable. Some of those people are stupid enough to believe the stuff he spouts, especially on issues where he's not as ridiculous as in this example.
  
  Most of those people have votes equal to yours, and can pass those votes based upon ridiculous or just plain false information and advice that they're getting from him. Why wouldn't it concern you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Yo-mon, 6 Aug 2013 @ 10:57am
  
  Re: Why would anyone care?
  Because sometimes the insanity is so insane that it requires a response out of shear dumbfoundedness (I am making that a word).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- brian burrage, 6 Jan 2015 @ 11:08am
  
  Re: Why would anyone care?
  You really need to be very careful what you say. He is right about these games. I too have struggles because I like to play them to. But God is slowly showing me that they are just plain demonic and really can corrupt a person. I will pray for you my friend. May God have mercy on us both.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 6 Jan 2015 @ 11:30am
    
    Re: Re: Why would anyone care?
    He is right about these games.
    
    No he's really not. I'm not guilty of thousands or millions of murders, in any way. And neither are you.
    
    But God is slowly showing me that they are just plain demonic and really can corrupt a person.
    
    That's a different question, and one for you to decide for yourself. But to state that doing something in a video game is the same as doing it in real life is just ridiculous.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 6:03am

Guess that means I'm a serial rapist for playing Custer's Revenge on the Atari.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JR Price (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 6:21am
  
  Re:
  You've committed a sin just by owning that game...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wally (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 6:05am

I must say, that even in the eyes of most conservative Christians...Pat Robinson is way out there.

Here's all we need to say. If you don't want your own children playing violent video games, that's fine...just don't call a ban for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PRMan, 6 Aug 2013 @ 10:26am
  
  Re:
  I don't agree with Pat Robertson on this issue, but he gets unfair treatment in the press:
  
  * He didn't say he wanted to assassinate Hugo Chavez but rather than get involved in another long war like Iraq, couldn't we just assassinate the leader and be done with it? He was mostly referring to Saddam, but the conversation started with Chavez.
  
  * The list of countries affected by the tsunami did match a list of countries killing the most Christians because of their faith. An odd coincidence maybe, but I can't say he's wrong on that one.
  
  * The point Jesus is trying to make in those verses (which are taken too literally by Pat) is that crime doesn't start with the crime itself, it starts in your heart and mind. Rape starts with lust, murder starts with hate, governments killing people and jailing innocents starts with thirst for power and money. If you can find ways to reduce the sinful thoughts, you'll have less crime.
  
  Now, personally, I find that getting those angry feelings out by killing pixels makes me hate real people less, so I don't agree with him. But that's where he's coming from.
  
  Many of his predictions have been wrong so he should stop trying to be a prophet since according to the Bible he is a false one.
  
  But the press never mentions the following:
  
  * Katrina
  * the tsunami
  * building hundreds of village wells all over Africa
  * free surgeries for poor people all over the world that can't afford it
  
  The good that he does all over the world to make it a better place should not be overlooked just because he makes an ignorant statement from time to time. I mean, if you and I were on TV every day for 30 years, I'm sure they could come up with 5 ridiculous, ignorant things we said as well.
  
  https://xkcd.com/1053/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DannyB (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 11:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    > Many of [Pat Robertson's] predictions have been wrong so he should stop
    > trying to be a prophet since according to the Bible he is a false one.
    
    According to his accountants, he is a good Profit, and should continue making these predictions.
    
    > The point Jesus is trying to make in those verses
    > (which are taken too literally by Pat)
    
    Matt 5:27-28
    NIV:
    27 �You have heard that it was said, �You shall not commit adultery.�[e] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
    
    NASB:
    27 �You have heard that it was said, �You shall not commit adultery�; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
    
    KJV:
    27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
    
    I agree Pat is taking it wrong.
    
    Another common POV about the meaning of those verses is that if you look at her lustfully you are already as guilty as if you had committed adultery with her.
    
    Even with that view, Pat gets it wrong. If I hate someone, maybe I'm as guilty as if I killed them. If I think about how to do someone in (probably because I actually hate them whether I admit it to myself or not) I'm as guilty as if I actually did it.
    
    Yet I would consider that shooting pixels on the screen, without intent to harm any actual living person, is no worse than the horrible violence that occurs in a violent game such as Frogger, or Space Invaders.
    
    If I modified a game so that the people I shot at had the likeness of a particular person I wanted to keep shooting at in the game, I would seriously have to question my internal motives.
    
    Pat is simply wrong about
    fictional shooting (no actual blasts occur)
    at fictional people (who do not actually exist)
    in a fictional setting (virtual world)
    being equivalent to even contemplating (internally) or thinking about how one might kill another person; let alone doing the actual act itself.
    
    My opinion would be that playing video games does not make any of us any worse of a sinner, and more importantly (hey Pat!) NOT playing them doesn't make us any less of a sinner.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 11:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I think that depends a lot on your state of mind when playing the game. If you're the type of person who fantasizes about killing your neighbor while shooting in the game, then maybe violent video games are not for you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wally (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 12:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well Pat Robinson is partly right about this. Never forget that a large majority of priests and ministers in this world are also marriage counselors which means they have a Masters Degree in Psychology.
        
        His psychological standpoint is good, he just involved religion. The thing is that while children aren't necessarily always going to be influenced by what they see in a game, they will be desensitized by it when something similar happens in front of their eyes in real life. They've done a lot of studies to do determine that.
        
        The main idea is that it's really up to the parents to raise their children and to be mindful of the content they want them to see. The ESRB rating system is in place for the specific purpose of providing parents with a content guide. It's better developed than the MPAA system.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - TheOldFart (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 4:41pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Speaking of selective memory on the part of the press, why don't you trumpet his successful efforts to pass all sorts of homobophic laws in Africa, including getting the death penalty for homosexual acts? Robertson and Rick Warren are two of the fundamentalist prime movers over there.
    
    As for the "The point Jesus is trying to make in those verses", a) know man can know the mind of god, b) even if the Jesus character really did exist (there is no contemporaneous evidence that he did) then you can't claim that bible verses represent his intent because none of them were written until more than half a century (and probably more like 100 years) after he was dead and gone. There are no first-hand accounts.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Wally (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 6:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      In the Bible it is written to "Love Thy Neighbor". Doesn't specify who "thy neighbor" is supposed to be...just love them.
      
      "If homosexuals seek The Lord, who am I to judge them?"
      
      ~Pope Francis
      
      "As for the "The point Jesus is trying to make in those verses", a) know man can know the mind of god, b) even if the Jesus character really did exist (there is no contemporaneous evidence that he did) then you can't claim that bible verses represent his intent because none of them were written until more than half a century (and probably more like 100 years) after he was dead and gone. There are no first-hand accounts."
      
      So after avidly attacking my core beliefs as a Christian, you decide to use that? You realize you acknowledged subtext that "No man can know the mind of God"....well it's fairly obvious this is why there are so many interpretations of biblical scripture and denominations of Christianity.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Attackerman, 8 Aug 2013 @ 6:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Really... I mean really... "avidly attacking your core beliefs"...
        
        I'm sorry but if your belief system is so fragile that someone sharing their opinion can derail it, it may be time to consider another system that can withstand some criticism.
        
        I hear the FSM is accepting applications.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Damnit Didnt read far enough, 8 Aug 2013 @ 7:04am
        
        Sorry late to the party
        Sorry, I was reading it as a threaded conversation and as I go further through it I do see a bit of the old r/atheism enthusiasm coming out.
        
        I couldn't figure out why theoldfarts comment above would be considered attacking your faith.
        
        I beg your forgiveness as I continue to make my way through the comments.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TheOldFart (profile), 8 Aug 2013 @ 5:12pm
        
        Re: Sorry late to the party
        The fact that it's religion is irrelevant. What's relevant is the fact that his entire thought process (I use the term loosely) is intellectually and morally bankrupt.
        
        Claims that gods are real are identical to claims that the Easter Bunny is real. There are equal amounts of evidence for both. If he claimed the Easter Bunny is real, I'd ridicule his beliefs for that.
        
        What he's bitching about is that he thinks beliefs in gods, devils and angels are somehow different than beliefs in unicorns, elves and wizards. He want "special dispensation" for his beliefs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 8 Aug 2013 @ 11:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Sorry late to the party
        "The fact that it's religion is irrelevant. What's relevant is the fact that his entire thought process (I use the term loosely) is intellectually and morally bankrupt.
        
        Claims that gods are real are identical to claims that the Easter Bunny is real. There are equal amounts of evidence for both. If he claimed the Easter Bunny is real, I'd ridicule his beliefs for that. "
        
        Read what you just said...very carefully...you claim your attacks are irrelevant to religion....yet you mention that my claims adhere to fake gods that don't exist??
        
        You really really need help....go see one of my colleagues...he or she will get your skitzoid anabolism straightened out and treated in no time ;-)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - So many comments so little time, 8 Aug 2013 @ 7:48am
        
        Reply from one of the ignorant ignoramuses
        Yeah, I guess I have to retract that apology. When the great comment archaeologists discover this thread in a hundred years buried under that old chevy impala over there they will probably need medical attention, sorry guys.
        
        Wally, sorry bro, I'm guessing english isn't your primary language because I'm having a hard time making sense out of everything your keyboard is throwing at the screen, but chill man. If someone makes a comment about christianity, they are not necessarily targeting you and every single christian on the planet. More than likely they are targeting the christian assholes who somehow manage to get their gob on TV or in the public spotlight and are pushing to limit other peoples rights.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ferel, 6 Aug 2013 @ 6:17am

THERE IS ONLY ONE LOGICAL RESPONSE TO THIS.
1. Make a video game simulation of the present solar system
2. Turn all 7 billion+ sim-humans into clones of Pat Robertson
3. Alter sim-Earth's orbit sending it straight into the Sun
4. ???
5. [strike]PROFIT[/strike] UBER HITLERCIDE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 6:18am

Hahaha, I'd have too much (or incredibly negative) fun with this guy.

"So... what about a game like X-Com which are quite violent but you are killing space aliens in defense of earth? Is it ok to kill aliens if I'm defending earth? Also at the end through my actions of commanding virtual humans to kill virtual aliens the Earth is saved... does that make me a saint?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corwin (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 6:18am

"sins"
This guy and each and every last person who takes him seriously should be legally considered a minor.

Wait, let's do one better. Each and every last person who confuses fact and fiction should legally be considered a minor.
So, anyone who seriously speaks to an imaginary friend, believes in magical sky-men who come back from death, or what-have-you : no right to vote, drive a car, hold a gun, get a loan, on grounds of proven immaturity and likely mental instability.

This would definitively solve the problem of policies based on superstition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 6:48am
  
  Re: "sins"
  I seriously hope you're joking. Being something of an advocate for people with mental health issues, I'd be tempted to take offense to this. Especially grouping the mentally unstable with the man in the sky worshippers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:08am
    
    Re: Re: "sins"
    I see your point but I also see his point. People who can't tell reality from fantasy are at best like children. And yet they are guiding policy making. Not that we should trample with their rights but they are as dangerous as some lunatic making the rules. Nobody would let a kid take important policy-related decisions and yet..
    
    I'm not supporting what he said, just discussing the idea of them being like children.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Corwin (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 8:25am
    
    Re: Re: "sins"
    I'm dead serious. Why do you think that believing fiction is true should not be considered a mental health issue?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 8:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re: "sins"
      "Why do you think that believing fiction is true should not be considered a mental health issue?"
      
      Because it isn't.
      
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions
      
      Can you say that you have never in your life believed ANY of the things listed? If you had, would that make you mentally ill?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dark Helmet (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 9:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        This is correct. Religious faith is ABSOLUTELY NOT a mental health "condition" or disease. Faith is willful, whereas mental diseases are not. That really should be the end of that discussion....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TheOldFart (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 10:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        Actually, religious faith is delusional, in both the clinical and perjorative senses of the word. See Richard Carrier's excellent youtube vid on the subject.
        
        There is no difference between believing the Easter Bunny is real and believing that Thor is real.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 1:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        What about believing there are morals, human rights and right and wrong? If there is no God, then you must be pretty delusional to believe there is such thing as human rights. The only rights you have, assuming there is not God, are the rights you can take and hold on to.
        
        So Christians admit they live on faith, the Godless don't even realize the contradictions of their own beliefs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Corwin (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 3:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        Cooperation is an evolutionary advantage. Look it up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2013 @ 2:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        That doesn't make it a collective truth. Morals and such exist because people share those values. They may do so because of intrinsic beliefs about right/wrong or because of evolutionary advantage, or other. However, they are not axioms (always true).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 8 Aug 2013 @ 11:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        Agreed....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TheOldFart (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 4:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        Sorry sport, you're going to have to at least graduate from first grade at Troll U. before you can talk to my secretary and make an appointment to engage me.
        
        If you should ever crawl out of your mom's basement and buy a dictionary, you'll find that the definition of 'atheism' has nothing to do with faith, 'religion' has nothing to do with morals, and 'human rights' existed for about 4 million years before your imaginary gods supposed wrote a magic book.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 8:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        Sorry sport, you're going to have to at least graduate from first grade at Troll U. before you can talk to my secretary and make an appointment to engage me.
        
        He said, right before engaging in the discussion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Bergman (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 1:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        So is atheism. Just like any adherent of any other religion, an atheist has great faith that his beliefs are true, has no objective proof but tons of subjective proof, just like every adherent of every religion does.
        
        You can't prove a negative, after all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 2:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        "Just like any adherent of any other religion, an atheist has great faith that his beliefs are true, has no objective proof but tons of subjective proof, just like every adherent of every religion does."
        
        This is a common misconception about atheism. An atheist does NOT say "there is no God", he/she says "there is no evidence that a God exists". The burden of proof is on the party making the claim, not on the party with no starting claim. There is no "faith" in atheism, only conclusion based on evidence and a refusal to conclude anything where no evidence exists.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TheOldFart (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 5:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        Actually, some of us (strong atheists) do say there is no god.
        
        The religious rely on the fact that you can't prove a negative as a "defense" of their gods existence in the natural world, but the rational do not.
        
        Does the Easter Bunny exist? You can't prove a negative, so that puts the Easter Bunny on an equal logical footing with Thor, Ganesha, Satan and the gods of Abraham.
        
        Yet any rational adult will tell you with confidence that the Easter Bunny does not exist. Not that there is no evidence, but that it simply does not exist.
        
        That's simply because the odds of such an aberration actually existing are so impossibly low that it can be dismissed out of hand by any rational adult human being.
        
        At some point rational human beings *must* dismiss such implausibilities, otherwise any rational discourse would be impossible.
        
        Gods and Easter Bunnies are objects/creatures embedded in a bigger context called the natural world. You can't isolate the Easter Bunny from the context of the natural world where all of human experience and all that we know of the prehistoric clearly indicate no such claim should be even considered.
        
        BTW the Carrier video on youtube I referred to earlier is " "Are Christians Delusional?" Richard Carrier Skepticon 3"
        
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28PjVaW4kKI&t=243
        
        On topic, I think the only difference between Robertson and mainstream Christians is that Robertson simply doesn't know enough to be embarrassed by his beliefs. He's the ultimate true Christian, a genuine believer who will say and do anything that his invisible gods put into his mind regardless of how he is mocked.
        
        Mainstream Christians are self conscious of their beliefs in invisible wizards. They want to pick and choose what words and actions they believe are/aren't telepathically implanted by their gods. They feel much more comfortable pretending that the gods implanted their words and ideas in Martin Luther King, but not in David Koresh and his followers. Mainstream Christians only want to be a little crazy.
        
        In short, they know their beliefs are crazy, they just don't want to be associated with the craziness their beliefs imply when taken to their logical conclusion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        "The religious rely on the fact that you can't prove a negative as a "defense" of their gods existence in the natural world, but the rational do not."
        
        I find your lack of faith disturbing
        
        ~Darth Vader
        
        "On topic, I think the only difference between Robertson and mainstream Christians is that Robertson simply doesn't know enough to be embarrassed by his beliefs. He's the ultimate true Christian, a genuine believer who will say and do anything that his invisible gods put into his mind regardless of how he is mocked."
        
        It's called turning the other cheek. If you hadn't been so ignorant and read the Bible before making this rant, you would know that he ignores it because that's what Christians, Buddhists, Hindi's, Muslims, Jews, and other religious groups teach. Mahatma Gandhi had the best take on the concept....and taught it to a Catholic friend of his.
        
        "Mainstream Christians are self conscious of their beliefs in invisible wizards. They want to pick and choose what words and actions they believe are/aren't telepathically implanted by their gods. They feel much more comfortable pretending that the gods implanted their words and ideas in Martin Luther King, but not in David Koresh and his followers. Mainstream Christians only want to be a little crazy."
        
        You've never heard of the concept of free will? Most of my fellow Christians and I try not to ram our religion down your throats...if it seems like I am now...I'm clearing up your rather ignorant and bigoted comments...I don't mind Atheists....but it's the type like you that argue in the same bigoted manner that you accuse Christians of...that are the most ignorant people of all.
        
        "In short, they know their beliefs are crazy, they just don't want to be associated with the craziness their beliefs imply when taken to their logical conclusion."
        
        So believing in unconditional love and kindness is crazy? I'm sorry to hear that. I'll do my best to be a stereotypical bigoted Christian for you if you like.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 1:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        "So believing in unconditional love and kindness is crazy"
        
        Of course not. There's evidence of that everywhere.
        
        Believing that this can only be done with an invisible, omnipotent, omnipresent being you have no real evidence to show exists in order to control things? That's another issue.
        
        You can believe whatever you want, and I don't really care. But, try to control the law and claim I have no similar morality just because you believe in something that I consider to be no more true than The Iliad and Norse/Greek mythology and we'll have to disagree.
        
        "Mahatma Gandhi had the best take on the concept"
        
        Mahatmda Gandhi also had this quote I like (although the attribution is disputed):
        
        "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 12:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        Yet I'm taking Mahatma Gandhi's take on the matter. You're only attacking my core beliefs and yet I've showed civil defiance towards you as Gandhi interpreted Christ's words. He didn't like some Christians, not all. The ideas he had were straight along the lines of that "magic" book you claim that Christians are too dumb to realize is not at all magic.
        
        We say it is the word of God because the meaning of that is simple. It was written in a way by humans on how to treat other humans. Ignorant folks such as yourself, Christians or not, take each word to the letter and assume that all Christian values have no subtext. All you see is "People reading from a 'magic book' ", and assume we are ignorant for having the capacity to interpret it differently from others.
        
        I respect Dark Helmut's Atheist beliefs and yours PaulT because neither if you attack the core principles and never assume that I think that those beliefs are exclusively Christian....oh FFS, I even mentioned all that concerning other religions way before TheOldFart started chiming in like an ignoramus that I'm wrong because he don't believe in what I believe in.
        
        It should be noted that I never once said anyone with their Atheist beliefs were wrong. Yes maybe I pointed out that the assumption that religious individuals are ignorant is totally wrong.
        
        However, after seeing Dark Helmut's, your's, and everyone else's Atheist beliefs I have a great comparison now by which I can compare truly intelligent, logical thinking Atheists, who don't bother Christians or any other religious folk about their own beliefs and don't press it upon them, to the ones such as yourself who wholeheartedly see religion as a threat to their own beliefs and are totally not open to the ideas of others. TheOldFart's type of Atheism is the type that causes genocide and disruption in what is otherwise peaceable relations. Both Christians and Atheists can be at fault for such disruptions.
        
        I love my Christ, but I don't always love the actions of my fellow Christians. I try my best to be like him and yet TheOldFart attacks me for it.
        
        So Dark Helmut, and every other Atheist here on these threads, let me assure you I respect your decisions and beliefs. You all made it clear you don't believe in them. My only goal was to point out and help everyone understand some of the misconceptions of Christianity that your ignorant types of Atheists (of which you and the others aren't....just TheOldFart is) assume. I love you because you are all my fellow humans.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 2:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        "So Dark Helmut, and every other Atheist here on these threads, let me assure you I respect your decisions and beliefs."
        
        This is going to sound waaaay more cruel than I intend, but I put it like this to my faithful friends: I may not respect your beliefs, but I definitely respect your right to believe them.
        
        It's a subtle difference, but an important one, because too often people of faith are shown respect simply for the fact that they have faith, which I think is a silly reason to assign respect to anyone. But I'll fight to the death people's rights to their own religion, even if I think that religion does more harm than good and that some religions in particular are indeed a threat to mankind....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TheOldFart (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 11:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        Hey Wally. Show us where atheism causes genocide.
        
        You keep breaking those commandments about bearing false witness. Don't you need to run out and say a few hail marys and toss some salt over your shoulder or something?
        
        I understand your frustration. All those atheists bursting into churches and mosques shouting "There is no god!" and detonating their suicide vests. We're a violent lot. I remember when we... no wait, it was the Christian nation that invaded Iraq that has killed over 120,000 innocent civilians there so far. But I do remember when the atheists bombed around the clock through the Tet holiday... no, wait, that was the Christian nation that started that war too, wasn't it? Now, the Inquisition, that was some really nasty atheist activity there, wasn't it? Oh, wait, I'm looking at the pictures and those guys seem to be holding up crosses.
        
        You know, that powerfully magical amulet that can ward off vampires and attacks by the demon possessed.
        
        Sadly they don't work on virulent atheists hell bent on freeing minds from the idiocy of superstitions about evil curses cast by invisible wizards.
        
        So, have you read Genesis yet? Do you agree now that your gods were in fact corporeal and that "invisible wizard" is a perfectly accurate way to describe someone who conjures objects from the void and casts evil spells on an entire species?
        
        You are telepathic, right? I mean, that's how you communicate with the invisible wizard, right? You telepathically convey to him that you accept that the 1/3 of him that he magically implanted in that woman, that bit of him died so that you could be free of the evil curse, right? That's why you send out on invisible waves for him to listen in on?
        
        Since you've got those sort of skillz and I obviously don't, I wonder if you could deliver a message to him. The message is this: I have seen his actions and I judge him to be the lowest form of filth, evil, and not worthy to lick the dog shit off the soles of my boots.
        
        I tried to be terse, just in case he charges by the number of words sent or something.
        
        Oh, shit, that's a telegraph, not telepath, isn't it?
        
        In any case, tell him that I have judged him and found him to be a shitbag.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 8 Aug 2013 @ 12:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        "Hey Wally. Show us where atheism causes genocide."
        
        Adolf Hitler.
        
        "You keep breaking those commandments about bearing false witness. Don't you need to run out and say a few hail marys and toss some salt over your shoulder or something?"
        
        Have I lied about you?
        
        "You know, that powerfully magical amulet that can ward off vampires and attacks by the demon possessed."
        
        Did I make such a blatant mockery of you for being honest in what I believe? Or only when you got mixed up in terms of the Fantasy genera?
        
        "You are telepathic, right? I mean, that's how you communicate with the invisible wizard, right?"
        
        You're that ignorant? I am a psychologist with a freaking PhD in experimental psychology.
        
        "Since you've got those sort of skillz and I obviously don't, I wonder if you could deliver a message to him. The message is this: I have seen his actions and I judge him to be the lowest form of filth, evil, and not worthy to lick the dog shit off the soles of my boots."
        
        I got a message back from him....he still loves you..ego I should love you too. And I do.
        
        "I tried to be terse, just in case he charges by the number of words sent or something."
        
        I am sure he already knows. After all, in the mythological sense, God is supposed to be an omnipresent, omnipotent supreme being after all.
        
        "You are telepathic, right? I mean, that's how you communicate with the invisible wizard, right? You telepathically convey to him that you accept that the 1/3 of him that he magically implanted in that woman, that bit of him died so that you could be free of the evil curse, right? That's why you send out on invisible waves for him to listen in on?"
        
        This question would be sort of a good point if it weren't for your mal-intent. Have I mocked your beliefs in such a terse manner? Was I really that mean to you? If so I am truly sorry. I should probably pray over you so that I may find forgiveness and peace and to help you find it as well.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 8 Aug 2013 @ 1:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        Adolf Hitler.
        
        Try again, he was catholic.
        
        http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/Hitler.xhtml
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 8 Aug 2013 @ 2:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        Pol Pot of Cambodia. Between 2 million and 4 million people were murdered under his regime, from 1963 to 1998.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 8 Aug 2013 @ 3:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        Who was a communist, which has nothing to do with atheism or theism, so again, no dice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TheOldFart (profile), 8 Aug 2013 @ 4:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        You keep injecting fact into his fantasy world. He really, really, really needs to attack/blame atheists.
        
        He can't defend his beliefs in telepathy, telekinesis, invisible wizards, evil curses and all the other rubbish, so he has to resort to "Well, Hitler was white so all whites hate Jews" sort of stuff.
        
        It's fun to watch him flounder, but I'm done with him. I'll just note that countering anti-science with evidence doesn't work. A hundred separate lines of evidence won't convince fundies that biological evolution is real. A hundred separate lines of evidence that there is no correlation between atheism and acts of war or torture won't convince them either.
        
        They're basically inflatable clown punching bags, hit them with a fact and they'll bounce right back with a different lie. They can make up more lies than you can ever have time to address.
        
        Aim for demonstrating that their thought processes/lines of "reasoning" are constructed of nothing but fail. That lets the air out of their whole schtick.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 8 Aug 2013 @ 11:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        "You keep injecting fact into his fantasy world. He really, really, really needs to attack/blame atheists."
        
        Maybe you should look at the chronological order and check out who attacked what first...you started your crusade upon my beliefs on me first and I've done almost not but turn the other cheek or otherwise be stern towards you. I still love you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2013 @ 11:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        He was anti-theist and of the South East Asian Communist Dictator variety...need I say more?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 9 Aug 2013 @ 12:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        If you mean to try and imply that that means he was not only an atheist, but that his actions were caused by it, then yes, you do.
        
        Anti-theist does not automatically mean 'atheist', it would simply mean he was against religion, most likely due to the competition for control it would present, which as a dictator would be something he would not tolerate.
        
        By the logic of 'anti-theist = atheist', both catholics and muslims would also be atheistic groups as well, as they both heavily disagree with, and have attacked, those of other faiths in the past.
        
        These of course are still moot points though, because even if he was an atheist, you would still have to prove that his deed were because of it, and not due to him simply being a murderous, power-hungry nutjob, something that both atheists and theist have had their fair share of as members.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 9 Aug 2013 @ 1:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        I know you're usually far too proud of your meagre tech certs and regularly come up with theories that prove you don't really have a clue about some basic concepts. But I didn't think you were this stupid.
        
        Go on, keep naming dictators and despots at random, you might hit one who actually did what he did simply because he didn't believe in your god.
        
        It's unlikely, and very hard to prove (hint: being an atheist doesn't mean he did what he did because of his atheism, and more than Hitler's vegetarianism or Catholic upbringing caused his actions). But go on, keep pretending that not believing in a god somehow makes someone a bad person. You might as well come up with some proof for your random insulting of people you've never met on a forum that has nothing to do with religion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 10 Aug 2013 @ 5:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        And you missed me naming Pol Pot above????
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2013 @ 2:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        "It's unlikely, and very hard to prove (hint: being an atheist doesn't mean he did what he did because of his atheism, and more than Hitler's vegetarianism or Catholic upbringing caused his actions). But go on, keep pretending that not believing in a god somehow makes someone a bad person. You might as well come up with some proof for your random insulting of people you've never met on a forum that has nothing to do with religion."
        
        Can you give any conclusive evidence that Wally might be defending himself and his beliefs? Just because a person randomly insults you doesn't mean they don't still love you..maybe if you would see how TheOldFart kept attacking Wally because Wally's beliefs you would not have much to say.
        
        *Sarcasm*Oh wait...Wally is a Christian which means he's Christian! His religion automatically makes him unintelligent!!!*sarcasm end*
        
        PaulT, you're a dumbass.
        
        "I know you're usually far too proud of your meagre tech certs and regularly come up with theories that prove you don't really have a clue about some basic concepts. But I didn't think you were this stupid."
        
        Please tell me what A+Certification has to do with a debate concerning religion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2013 @ 7:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        Attacking Wally? You think an "adult" claiming that invisible wizards are real, can conjure a universe from nothing and can be communicated with telepathically should be tolerated? Treated as if they're sane/rational?
        
        If he claimed Superman is real, or the Easter Bunny is real, would it be attacking him to call it absolute bullshit?
        
        What about Thor or Ganesha? Unicorns? Is that ridiculous bullshit?
        
        But change the imaginary creature to "god" and now it's an "attack" to call the claims ridiculous bullshit?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TheOldFart (profile), 10 Aug 2013 @ 8:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        Whoops - didn't realize I wasn't signed in on my laptop - that comment was mine.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 11 Aug 2013 @ 1:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        "PaulT, you're a dumbass."
        
        Is this the kind of maturity that belief in a fictional character inspires? If so, I'm glad I don't suffer from that delusion.
        
        "Please tell me what A+Certification has to do with a debate concerning religion."
        
        Wally, stop posting anonymously and pretending that you're being insightful in any way. You have a habit of using your basic entry level certification to pretend that you're knowledgeable about advanced tech concepts, even though you typically get even the basics wrong. That proves that you're either dishonest or that you have an inflated ego that's not backed by any facts or real knowledge whatsoever. I suspect that you use the same degrees of honesty and intelligence in this debate as well, which means your opinion is probably just as worthless.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 11 Aug 2013 @ 1:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        Ah, never mind. I see from other comments here that you're so ignorant of your own religion's history that you don't know the difference between Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the 16th century reformist from whom he took his name. I'm sure everything else is based on similar levels of knowledge.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TheOldFart (profile), 8 Aug 2013 @ 4:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        Show your proof that Hitler was an atheist.
        
        Had you had read a history book or even watched the Richard Carrier youtube video on "Are Christians Delusional?", you'd already know that not only was Hitler a Christian, the Nazi platform was point-by-point an image of Martin Luther's Protestant platform.
        
        From wikipedia:
        
        "A German census in May 1939, completed more than six years into the Nazi era[2] and incorporating the annexation of mostly Catholic Austria into Germany, indicates that 54% of Germans considered themselves Protestant, (including non-denominational Christians) and 40% considered themselves Catholic, with only 3.5% claiming to be neo-pagan "believers in God," and 1.5 % non-Christians, or "non-believers"."
        
        That commandment against lying keeps rearing its head, doesn't it?
        
        You can't mock my beliefs - I'm an atheist. I don't believe in any gods. Did you miss all those other a-words like amorphous, asymmetrical, atonal, amoral, atypical, arrhythmia, acellular, asynchronous, and all their other "has no" pals?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2013 @ 2:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        Martin Luther King emphasized on equality for all man kind and achieved that through the same methods that Mahutma Gandhi did in freeing India from British rule...it's called civil disobedience asshole fucktard.
        
        Adolph Hitler had an abused childhood. He was genetically Jewish and regularly got beetimgs from his drunken Atheist father. NOTE: Wally was asked to produce the name of an "Atheist who committed genocide"....not an "Atheist who commited genocide based upon his or her Atheist beliefs".
        
        Once again Atheism has not one thing to do with how a person acts or thinks...it's a belief system...it does not dictate a behavior. Just because a belief system says one thing does not mean that people won't do bad things.
        
        All that shit about rape in the Bible some people like to point out purposefully while attempting to bring validity to their arguments against Christianity ignore the huge consequences for the rapist....typically death by stoning...
        
        Anyway...Adolf Hitler hated EVERYONE that was not German. He either claimed being Catholic to perpetuate hatred against the Pope...who didn't agree with him and you know how Hitler felt about who he considered political dissidents... He was also a psychotic suffering from The Clap.
        
        He was a week Atheist.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TheOldFart (profile), 10 Aug 2013 @ 8:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        Ya know, the anonymous posting is good. You should definitely keep it anonymous, because the irony and dishonesty in your response is not something you'd want to be associated with.
        
        Martin Luther is not Martin Luther King Jr that you're thinking of. Try wikipedia.
        
        You missed the bit about all the Christians claiming "god is on their side" as the reason for starting wars. Maybe your internet was out during that bit?
        
        You also seemed to have missed the dictionary lesson. a-theism. It means without. It is NOT a belief, it means "without theism" just like "amorphous" means "without form" and "asymmetrical" means "without symmetry."
        
        You obviously haven't read the bible - or else you're just plain dishonest. Then penalty for rape is a small fine and then the woman is forced to marry the man who raped her. That would be Deuteronomy 22:28-29, where it says:
        
        "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
        
        The only killing for the crime of rape is the killing of the woman who was raped, as in Deuteronomy 22:23-24
        
        "If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife."
        
        You neglect - or in your ignorance don't know - that the gods commanded rape. Judges 21:10-24, Numbers 31:7-18 and roughly a dozen other places in the bible.
        
        Don't you just miss the good ol' days when you could sell your kids for fuck toys, like Exodus 21:7-11
        
        "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 8 Aug 2013 @ 5:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        For the record Hitler was not an atheist. He was likely a pagan and the Nazi uniform belts had a buckle claiming God's favor. Hell in mein Kampf Hitler says he's doing God's will...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TheOldFart (profile), 8 Aug 2013 @ 5:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        In "Mein Dummkopf", Bush said exactly the same thing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 2:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        "So believing in unconditional love and kindness is crazy?"
        
        I'm sorry, I thought you were Christian? Here's the simple math: you absolutely cannot espouse unconditional love AND Hell in the same breath. They are incompatible. Now, I have some Christian friends that forego the Hell story, and many Jewish friends that de facto do the same, and I find their faith more pallitable and compatible.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 3:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        Hell is a paradox. A place where God is not in does not exist because He is Omnipresent. Simple as that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 6:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        I could kiss you where you stand for that :-)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chargone (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 8:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        Hell is an unsupported myth that has nothing to do with scripture.
        At All.
        
        It got picked up from, among other things, Norse myth and intigeated into the tradition.
        
        Biblically, there is the place where the dead wait for the end times, equated to Hades. At that point they are sorted. Those who did not chose to follow Jesus/God are described as, from memory, being cast into a holocaust. A great destructive fire, which Ends them, in exactly the same way most atheistw claim death does to Everybody.
        
        There Is No Eternal Torture.
        
        Further more, the place where the demons reside, which Does suck that much? They don't run it. It's a prison for them. And at the end the go into that destructive fire and stop existing too. (there's also some descriptive factors that equate it with the earth's core.)
        
        Somehow, the demon prison was fused with the land of the dead and the fire at the end in the common mythology, but there's no scriptural support for that At All.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 11:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        In Judaism, Hell is defined as being far away from God and cursed to walk the Earth for eternity.
        
        Buddhism, has no Hell...but, your actions might get you reincarnated as an insect until you reach enlightenment.
        
        I have Hindi neighbors and I'll ask them about it some time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 8 Aug 2013 @ 3:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        Have fun with that, reading over the wiki entry on it right now, and it looks like it would come down to the person you are talking to due to their not really being a 'core' set of beliefs with Hinduism, though for the most part it looks similar to Buddhism, with rebirth/reincarnation.
        
        Fascinating read regardless, you should check it out:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 8 Aug 2013 @ 11:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        Please cite the part in this ENTIRE THREAD where I specifically ever stated the my core Christian beliefs were either A) At the core of all religion, or B) Exclusively Christian.
        
        Now let me educate your ignorance in trying to point out a "logical mishap" in my use of the words "core Christian Beliefs"....I never once said these concepts were exclusive and they clearly aren't. The phrase of "Core Christian Beliefs" means by terms of properly spoken English that the beliefs I adhere to are based upon the teachings of one Jesus of Nazareth. I only said my beliefs stem from the teachings of Jesus Christ....not the core of the freaking world's other religions....Come on TOG, you have got to be smarter than that!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 11 Aug 2013 @ 2:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        ... and now you're just lashing out randomly.
        
        Read my comment. Then read it again. Then tell me what the deuce it has to do with anything other than pointing out that Hinduism beliefs have several interpretations based upon who you're talking to, some very different than the others(something that causes no or almost no friction by the way, due to the inclusive nature of the core belief system).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 12 Aug 2013 @ 7:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        Hinduism embraces and encompasses a lot of beliefs...because it is likely older than both Christianity and Buddhism. Those two might have evolved from it actually. When I say beliefs...it's not the mythos I speak about...it's about the core humanitarian altruistic practices of the three that parallel.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 4:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        Agreed, the Hiduism mythos varies, from one god, multiple gods, no god, and several other bits, while the core belief system seems to be pretty solidly the same regardless of group, with only minor differences.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TheOldFart (profile), 8 Aug 2013 @ 5:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...
        And Batman could take Superman any day because he's got a cool car and Superman just has a cape.
        
        Simple as that.
        
        Identical argument applied to identical entities.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 8:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        You are not a 'strong atheist,' you are an antitheist. They are closely related, but antitheists believe there is no god, and thus is faith based. Atheists require proof one way or the other. You cannot prove that god does or does not exist. There is no evidence to prove the existence, and you cannot prove a negative.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 1:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        Actually, you're wrong. All those words have meanings. This is how it really goes:
        
        Theism describes a belief in a god or gods. The prefix a negates the meaning of a term. So, a theist is someone who does believe, an atheist is someone who does not.
        
        Gnosticism describes a claim of knowledge. So, a gnostic claims to have knowledge while an agnostic makes no claim of knowledge.
        
        So, a "strong atheist" is a gnostic atheist - someone who no only believes that there is no god, but also claims knowledge that this is so. An agnostic atheist (or, colloquially, an agnostic) believes that there is no god but will not claim absolute knowledge of that.
        
        Neither requires evidence to hold the belief they hold, but both could normally require evidence in order to change their mind. I'd personally say I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't believe god exists. I don't claim to hold absolute knowledge, but it would take extraordinary evidence to change me into a believer - and I've seen little actual evidence from theists that any god exists, let alone whatever version their particular sect adheres to.
        
        The other term you're using - antitheist - means what the word means. That's a person who is opposed to theists. For many of them it's a natural reaction to a lot of the 100% religion-based laws that theists keep trying to pass to restrict the freedom of others, but that has nothing naturally to do with atheism. It's possible to be any form of atheist without being antitheist.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TheOldFart (profile), 8 Aug 2013 @ 5:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        Strong atheist and anti-theist are two different things, and I am both.
        
        Atheists do not require evidence. Look up the word in a dictionary. It's really not that hard, is it?
        
        a�the�ism
        (th-zm)
        n.
        1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
        2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
        [French ath�isme, from ath�e, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a-1 + theos, god; see dhs- in Indo-European roots.]
        
        It's also impossible to prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, but rational adults draw a cutoff based on the fact that the Easter Bunny claim is embedded in the context of the rest of reality. It can be dismissed out of hand as so fantastically unlikely that it's childish and stupid to claim otherwise.
        
        Just like gods, angels, devils, faeries, unicorns and bigfoot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 12 Aug 2013 @ 7:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        "2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
        [French ath�isme, from ath�e, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a-1 + theos, god; see dhs- in Indo-European roots.]"
        
        It's a doctrine...which means any claims coming from it whether proving or disproving any existence of some deity or icon will always be bias in the absolute thought of trying to find every reason to debunk conjectures coming from the other side. The doctrine tells you to always look for things to disprove.
        The other thing the doctrine teaches you in its extremity is to take every thing you see in front of you in the literal sense right?
        Best example is Rational Wiki's idea that the Bible indicates that Jesus was a homosexual right? I sort of object to that based on the fact that it cites Jesus receding to one of his disciples as hi beloved...in the Bible he really does....but they failed to notice that it's in the context of "best friend". Jesus loved everyone no matter what and never shunned those in need.
        
        You do realize it is a theory (a proven repeatable scientific fact....astronomy) that a man named Jesus did in fact exist around the time of Pontus Pilate as he was Governor of Judea right?
        
        It's not the that things may or may not exist that internally drives my belief system. It's the fact that I feel strength and comfort at my week moments when I can't talk to anyone about my troubles.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TheOldFart (profile), 12 Aug 2013 @ 7:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        Wally, if there's anything sadder than your ignorance of the bible, it's your absolute ignorance of science and logic.
        
        There is no such thing as a "scientific fact". Never has been, never will. There are theories, and theories accepted as laws, but all genuine science is always subject to change if new evidence is found. Maybe you should at least come up to speed on what was being taught to young kids back in the 50's and 60's http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw "Feynman on Scientific Method."
        
        No one who has ever even read the freaking title of a book on logic has ever attempted to disprove the existence of anything. If I didn't interact with the anti-science types so regularly I'd have sworn nobody could possibly be stupid enough to seriously consider it. It's always one of the first arguments the religious reach for though. I wonder why that is?
        
        Your total ignorance of such simple things does go a long way towards explaining your beliefs in the supernatural.
        
        How are the telepathy exercises coming along?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TheOldFart (profile), 12 Aug 2013 @ 8:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        As for your superstitions bringing you comfort as they bring the rest of the world misery and tragedy, Sam Harris says it best
        
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrDlVLbtKbQ
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 13 Aug 2013 @ 12:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        "You do realize it is a theory (a proven repeatable scientific fact....astronomy) that a man named Jesus did in fact exist around the time of Pontus Pilate as he was Governor of Judea right?"
        
        Wow, as ignorant as the rest of your posts here have been, I just had to dive in...
        
        First, wtf does astronomy have to do with whether or not a particular man existed? Are you so clueless that you can't even distinguish astronomy and history?
        
        Secondly, so what? That doesn't mean that any of the mythology surrounding him is true. It doesn't even mean that the story of Barabbas is true, let alone the supernatural crap.
        
        If you think this is proof, then I submit to you that Abraham Lincoln was actually a vampire hunter. After all, there's a book that documents this fact and we have historical evidence that Lincoln was real.
        
        King Arthur and Robin of Lockswood were both real people, but it's doubtful that most of their exploits have been documented accurately - and they've had hundreds of years less time to be exaggerated than the story of Christ. Why should I believe that particular story?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 1:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        "King Arthur and Robin of Lockswood were both real people, but it's doubtful that most of their exploits have been documented accurately - and they've had hundreds of years less time to be exaggerated than the story of Christ. Why should I believe that particular story?"
        
        I don't recall saying "these events mentionef in the Bible actually happened because they're in the Bible," did I? I'm merely trying to say that Jesus may have existed based on evidence. I never said any of the miracles in the Bible actually happened...I never claimed anyone of them did occurr....if I did it was purely in the mythical mentioning of certain meanings behind it and possibly a light hearted religious joke concerning wine.
        
        You do realize that RationalWiki claims that Jesus may have been homosexual because of a common phrase typically used to express that you care for a friend of yours right??? In the Bible Jesus calls one of his deciples his beloved. It's not that a homosexual Jesus would bother me, but to suggest that idea blindly without looking into the entomology and historical use of that word in the context in which it is presented in the Bible simply shows that whoever wrote that article clearly has no sense of comprehension.
        
        Also...when did I ask you to believe in miracles...which is what the stories of mythological Jesus performing them is supposed to teach...it's in the context of believing in yourself and pushing yourself to achieve your goals?
        
        The trouble with TheOldFart's virulent display of Atheism is a lack of belief in anything bigger than himself. It's his arrogance in that particular substraight if Atheism that makes him just as delusional...and in his case it's self delusional grandeos. He has no respect for others' rights to believe in what they believe. It is his arrogance which you are defending PaulT...not his beliefs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 2:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        Well, you really didn't address anything I said, you just went off onto tangents about what other sites I've never read might have said. I don't care about those claims, I was only addressing the part of your post that I quoted, nothing more.
        
        Let's put it simply: you're the one who brought up Jesus' existence as if that means something. My response is: so what? Even if there was a man named Jesus and even if he was crucified and executed at the hand of Pilate, that means bugger all in terms of whether there's a god as described in the Bible. So, why bring it up? A man possibly existed. That doesn't mean a god does.
        
        Nobody except Christians would give a crap about his sexuality either, except that so many so-called "Christians" are using their book of fiction to deny rights to others. Whether he was gay, bi, straight, whether he banged Mary Magdelene every night of his adulthood or died a virgin, I don't care.
        
        Similarly, you seem to be wanting to redefine atheism to mean something that it simply does not. That's where I dive in. I'm fine with historical facts and language being used to make arguments. But when you have to redefine words in order to attack people and twist facts to pretend they prove something they don't, that's where I respond.
        
        Stop doing that, and we'll be fine. Believe whatever you want. Just be honest about your beliefs and those of others. At least use logic - selective attacking of what a website I've never visited says about a subject I care nothing about means exactly nothing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 8:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        The Hebrew word for "Beloved" also translates to "kind" as in "kindred" or "kin" in the adjective....clearly that website missed a step or two in logic when conflating the idea. I'm not against the idea of homosexual Jesus, but the semantics of what "Beloved" translates back to Hebrew from in the adjective form blow that notion out of the water.
        
        You will never be satisfied with the way I think as long as you look smart huh PaulT?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 8:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        Mainstream Christians... know their beliefs are crazy
        
        I'm wondering how much time you've really spent talking to mainstream Christians about their beliefs. And also what you mean by mainstream Christians.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 8:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        I'm thinking perhaps he meant that the majority of common Christians (excluding the Westboro Baptist ilk) realize that much of the DOGMA is nonsense. While Catholic leadership is extremely conservative and anti gay marriage, for instance, you'll find most Catholic parishioners are either in favor of it or don't care one way or the other.
        
        Most Christians don't keep holy every sabbath day. Most Christians ARE selective in which parts of the bible they follow. This is, by the way, the same of every other religion as well, because deep down people are skeptical enough to know at least some small parts of any book claiming to be holy is going to be bullshit.
        
        None of that refutes the existence of God, of course, or even the primary Christian claims, but anyone laying claims to a "perfect" book is pissing into the wind....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 8:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        I'm thinking perhaps he meant that the majority of common Christians (excluding the Westboro Baptist ilk) realize that much of the DOGMA is nonsense.
        
        "Mainstream Christians are self conscious of their beliefs in invisible wizards." I think he's talking about the core beliefs of Christianity.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TheOldFart (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        Is English your native language?
        
        Regardless of whether it is or not, you've got no excuse for not using a dictionary.
        
        Tell me, what shape does an amorphous object have?
        What rythm can be found in arrhythmia?
        What is moral in an amoral story?
        How typical is an atypical event?
        What sort of symmetry does an asymmetrical object present?
        
        Are we sensing a theme here? Okay, let's go for the big one:
        
        What sort of theism does an atheist have?
        
        Here's a hint: look in the dictionary under t... th.... the....thei.... theis....
        
        Come on, you can get there.
        
        Now for bonus points, if the lack of belief in gods is a belief, tell us (in 100 words or less) what sort of belief your lack of belief in the Easter Bunny is.
        
        You don't believe in it so you must have beliefs that it doesn't exist, right?
        
        For a triple word score, explain this: If your gods only claim to fame is that their non-existence can't be proven, and the Easter Bunnies claim to fame is also that its non-existence can't be proven, what exactly distinguishes your gods from the Easter Bunny?
        
        Remember you get extra points for staying within the lines and not drooling on the picture before you turn it in.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        Would you please stop being a bigot?
        
        Here's a word you likely never learned...
        
        Faith
        
        Here's another one
        
        Love
        
        Here's another one...
        
        Kindness.
        
        Concept...
        Turning the other cheek.
        
        My goal as a Christian is to have faith in my God to help give me the centered mental strength to love you as my own fellow human being. I can only do this through unconditional kindness in spite of the mean things you say I must turn the other cheek.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Corwin (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 10:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        Wait, you need to believe in a sky-fairy just to respect a fellow human being?
        
        I feel threatened.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2013 @ 3:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        Good grief--do you treat all people this way? You really might want to check your hypocrisy meter.
        
        How can you not see this as bigotry? Don't you get it? Racism and bigotry are born from this perspective: "I love and respect all people... except those guys over there--they're crazy."
        
        You have rationalized your behavior by convincing yourself that because religious people are stupid/delusional (so you believe) treating them in this manner is ok.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 6:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        You feel threatened because of my beliefs? You realize Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein feared others' beliefs? Most of the world's genocide actually stems from such fear.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rhymes with orange, 8 Aug 2013 @ 8:30am
        
        Re:threatened
        I believe he is saying that if the only thing keeping you from going all psycho and whipping out a machine gun to kill all those dirty dirty atheists is your belief in god... he's a bit afraid that you may decide not to believe any more.
        
        To tell the truth, so am I.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 8 Aug 2013 @ 3:06pm
        
        Re: Re:threatened
        It is against my inherent nature to murder someone...the problem is that my religious beliefs hold me back from snapping on him...doesn't mean I would murder him. The goal was to try to get me to murder him, the goal was trying to troll me into being hypocritical....I feel I have done a pretty god job of it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 11:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        Here's a word you likely never learned...
        
        Faith
        
        Here's another one
        
        Love
        
        Here's another one...
        
        Kindness.
        
        Concept...
        Turning the other cheek.
        
        With the exception of faith, I've learned and practice those things in my daily life. I also hold a high level of skepticism of religion and a deep aversion to anything involving blind faith. Not sure what your comment has proven, except that those things can be achieved with or without religion. I prefer to make my own moral decisions based on reality and my own life experiences, not some dogma based on blind faith, half-truths and a desire to control the unwashed masses from a couple of centuries ago.
        
        Basically, my "religion" involves only myself and my moral beliefs and has nothing whatsoever to do with any fictional book, Sunday social gatherings, ornate buildings or a collection tray.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 11:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        While those principles are in no way exclusive to my belief system, they are inherently at the core of it. TheOldFart is attacking my beliefs based in that and I'm turning the other cheek by continually being kind as I was indoctrinated to be.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wolfy, 6 Aug 2013 @ 11:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        Ola, DH.
        
        Even though you consider "faith" to be willful, consider someone who has been indoctrinated since birth. It must necessarily be very difficult for them to even entertain an idea that exists outside of their mental framework. I'm thinking of a young Mormon I know. Grew up in the "faith", and cannot entertain any idea that is in conflict with Mormonism.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 11:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        For every person you show me that was indoctrinated at birth and can't think for themselves, I will show you 10 more who can.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TheOldFart (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        Isn't it a moral duty for the religious to examine their beliefs?
        
        The only thing that has significantly contributed to the quality of human life and to the length of human lifespan is science and rational thought.
        
        It isn't praying that cures cancers. It isn't priests that perform heart transplants. Nuns don't resuscitate dead people, electricity does.
        
        Given that religion has never saved a child, extended the human lifespan or caused an extended period of peace to break out, isn't it the moral duty of your Mormon pal to question why they spend their days putting the brakes on human progress - and worse, molesting the minds of children with the same crap thereby dooming them to a less productive and less valuable life than they could have had?
        
        I don't make apologies for people who refuse to think because I believe their narcissism/weakness/mental frailty is very, very bad for the future of the human race and the planet.
        
        Putting fear and ignorance into the minds of small children, telling them blatant lies, that's child molesting. Churches and priests should not get a free pass for fucking their butts or fucking their minds. It's simply wrong to allow either act to go unchallenged.
        
        I bet Pat Robertson would do both ends of the kids if he thought no one was looking.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 8:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        "Isn't it a moral duty for the religious to examine their beliefs?"
        
        Quite constantly....it teaches us to love each other no matter what others believe...problem is you haven't examined any religious beliefs well enough to understand how we keep our faith in our beliefs.
        
        "It isn't praying that cures cancers. It isn't priests that perform heart transplants. Nuns don't resuscitate dead people, electricity does. "
        
        No but if you're prayed over as a cancer patient, it often comforts a person which increases the potency of the immune system. A psychosomatic response. Laughter eases pain....which helps a patient live a better life until they die.
        
        "Given that religion has never saved a child, extended the human lifespan or caused an extended period of peace to break out, isn't it the moral duty of your Mormon pal to question why they spend their days putting the brakes on human progress - and worse, molesting the minds of children with the same crap thereby dooming them to a less productive and less valuable life than they could have had?"
        
        Copernicus, Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo, Marie Curie, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Neil Armstrong, Hippocrates....all religious...all forwarded human progress.
        
        "Putting fear and ignorance into the minds of small children, telling them blatant lies, that's child molesting. Churches and priests should not get a free pass for fucking their butts or fucking their minds. It's simply wrong to allow either act to go unchallenged."
        
        Seems your fear of religion is causing your ignorance. Those pastors were not only charged, but defrocked by their respective Christian denominations. You've gone straw man.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Corwin (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 10:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        ""Isn't it a moral duty for the religious to examine their beliefs?""
        
        "Quite constantly....it teaches us to love each other no matter what others believe...problem is you haven't examined any religious beliefs well enough to understand how we keep our faith in our beliefs."
        
        We understand well enough how you do it. Doublethink, i.e. training to flee thoughts and ideas that threaten your precious fictitious belief system away from cognitive dissonance. That's what you do in the post above, where you speak of "turning the other cheek", "kindness" and "compassion", citing anecdotes involving 'authority' figures; it obviously means "please stop making me think that maybe all I believe in is BULLSHIT, by kind compassion for my feeble tolerance to actually thinking about the superstitious angle where my magical sky-man just might not exist any more than the Easter Bunny".
        
        ""It isn't praying that cures cancers. It isn't priests that perform heart transplants. Nuns don't resuscitate dead people, electricity does. ""
        
        "No but if you're prayed over as a cancer patient, it often comforts a person which increases the potency of the immune system. A psychosomatic response. Laughter eases pain....which helps a patient live a better life until they die."
        
        So, praying works as well as a placebo. Thus, does nothing to actually stop the cancer.
        Medicine wins, prayer fails.
        
        ""Given that religion has never saved a child, extended the human lifespan or caused an extended period of peace to break out, isn't it the moral duty of your Mormon pal to question why they spend their days putting the brakes on human progress - and worse, molesting the minds of children with the same crap thereby dooming them to a less productive and less valuable life than they could have had?""
        
        "Copernicus, Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo, Marie Curie, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Neil Armstrong, Hippocrates....all religious...all forwarded human progress. "
        
        Religious people. Not religion. Conflating much? And, appeal to authority. Two fallacies in as many sentences. Some you cite even had so much problems with religion that the Church still hasn't forgiven them 400 years later. An other wasted half his life doing alchemy and chasing ghosts. What would Newton have discovered if he'd been totally sane? Maybe we'd have had relativity half a century earlier.
        
        ""Putting fear and ignorance into the minds of small children, telling them blatant lies, that's child molesting. Churches and priests should not get a free pass for fucking their butts or fucking their minds. It's simply wrong to allow either act to go unchallenged.""
        
        "Seems your fear of religion is causing your ignorance. Those pastors were not only charged, but defrocked by their respective Christian denominations. You've gone straw man."
        
        Oh and now YOU're talking about logical fallacies? That's so fucking precious. And, are you doing so while defending the teaching of fiction as fact to children?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 11:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        The stress in a cancer patient lowers their immune system...sometimes prayer or being prayed over provides comfort to a wary person. The immune system therefore gets boosted and while it might not save a life....it certainly eases their eminent passing. That's what prayers do for terminally ill patients.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ethorad (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 8:30am
  
  Re: "sins"
  Problem is you are conflating these two items:
  
  - belief in God
  - inability to make a rational voting decision
  
  There are plenty of people around who are religious and yet manage to make a considered decision on who to vote for.
  
  Admittedly there are plenty of people who can't, but then religiousness isn't a defining characteristic. I would argue lack of education is a better filter.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Corwin (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 3:09pm
    
    Re: Re: "sins"
    You can't make a rational voting decision if you're delusional.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Wally (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 12:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: "sins"
      So you voted Obama then.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - That One Guy (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 1:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"
        To be fair, last two elections, there were no good choices, just different shades of bad.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simon, 6 Aug 2013 @ 6:25am

It doesn't scare me that Pat Roberston and his ilk exist, it scares me that he can flourish in a supposedly first world nation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beta (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 6:44am

Inferno
I've committed quite a lot of these sins too. And gone to hell many times, often permanently, so I guess I'm all paid up.

(P.S. I used to play space war strategy games-- my body count is in the trillions.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Forge, 6 Aug 2013 @ 8:48am
  
  Re: Inferno
  I have killed multiple universes many, many times. I have damned the entirety of creation to flaming hell more times than I can count.
  
  From this I can logically extrapolate: Pat Robertson? I'll see you in Hell.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amber, 6 Aug 2013 @ 6:55am

What about spawning? Zombies?
So, if you kill someone in a video game, and they respawn, does that count? I mean, they didn't stay dead. What about killing zombies? Technically, they are supposed to be already dead. In Katamari, you don't really kill people either, you just trap them in a big ball. Does that count? Maybe some of you commenters aren't as bad as you think you are. We'll just have to ask Pat Robertson about that, because he knows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:20am
  
  Re: What about spawning? Zombies?
  Respawning is proof of miracles. Jesus brought Lazarus and himself back from the dead. Same thing. See. The video games prove it's all true.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 6:57am

"incorrectly predicting the end of the world in 1982"

If you incorrectly predict the end of the world in a particular year, I fail to see why you should continue to be looked at as a theological expert. You're obviously doing something very wrong.

That said, he isn't totally wrong here.

"lusting after a woman was the same as committing adultery (Yay! Thought crime!)."

Sin and crime are not the same thing. And Jesus DID say this. Are you saying that God cannot judge our thoughts? Do you think lusting after a woman is not a sin, and the 9th/10th commandments (depending on how you count them) don't apply?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:05am
  
  Re:
  "Are you saying that God cannot judge our thoughts? Do you think lusting after a woman is not a sin, and the 9th/10th commandments (depending on how you count them) don't apply?"
  
  I've talked about my views on religion in the comments before, but I don't want to derail this thread early on. I'm more than happy to have an exchange based on this question, but why don't we let the thread mature a bit first, if that's okay?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wally (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 8:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    Sorry Dark Helmut...it has to be said, and I'll end the debate here too lol :-)
    
    Metaphorically speaking, Eve is formed of Adam's right rib....this symbolizes that women are to be by our sides...our right hand...which makes her the equal.
    
    In a metaphorical sense, the sin of lust only really means that it's easier to look at a pretty thing and do what it tells you without question. When you lust after a woman, it basically objectifies her. The objectification of any person is considered a sin. It's not bad to look though...unless you are dating person or married to a person.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 9:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Metaphorically speaking, Eve is formed of Adam's right rib....this symbolizes that women are to be by our sides...our right hand...which makes her the equal."
      
      That is a horrific misrepresentation of what the Genesis story has to say about women. You can't gloss over the fact that Adam was first (in the Bible story, I mean, since that's obviously all it is) and that Eve led him astray. Neither are coincidence. But if you need the point driven home, Genesis 2:18 20 is quite clear that women ought be man's helper (subservient) and follow man's lead (subservient). Bible apologists will explain this away as being that God simply devised different roles for each to play, glossing over the fact that man's role is leader and woman's is follower. There is nothing equal in that.
      
      "When you lust after a woman, it basically objectifies her."
      
      All sex includes an element of lust, or extreme want. Otherwise it wouldn't be so much fun. You damn all sex with talk like that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 10:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You can't gloss over the fact that Adam was first (in the Bible story, I mean, since that's obviously all it is) and that Eve led him astray.
        
        And let's not forget the very first woman, Lilith, who was not made from a rib, but was made in exactly the same way (and time) as Adam. her sin was that she was an independent, intelligent woman who refuse to be subservient to Adam.
        
        After she left Eden, Eve was created with a specific eye toward being subservient to Adam.
        
        It doesn't get more sexist than that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 2:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Lilith seems to serve as a reminder that those who are exactly the same as on another are not always compatible with each other. Also, in my view, it serves as a reminder that a person can go through a few bad relationships to figure out what they want.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TheOldFart (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, it does get more sexist than that, but only if you're the mayor of San Diego, a NY senate wanna be or some other high ranking politician.
        
        The good news is that 5 days at a feel-good seminar on "Managing The Envy Everyone Else Has For Your Penis" will make you all better and once again fit to hold office.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Richard (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 11:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You can't gloss over the fact that Adam was first (in the Bible story, I mean, since that's obviously all it is) and that Eve led him astray.
        
        Actually the first creation of men and women in Genesis 1:26-27 has them clearly created on an equal footing:
        
        Genesis 1
        26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
        27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
        
        The Adam and Eve story comes later.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 11:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Richard, come on, are you REALLY arguing that Genesis paints men and women in an equal light? You can cherry pick a verse or two, but so can I and it only takes a little bit of unequal to make it unequal...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 12:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Eve was symbolically made of Adam's right rib....not the foot, not the skull or neck....the rib...Eve was Adam's best friend, his right hand man...ergo his equal, his partner, and they shared everything.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 6:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wait, what? What does the fact that the bone is question is supposed to have been a rib bone have anything to do with the rest of it?
        
        Maybe it's one of those things I missed, but last time I checked there was nothing special about rib bones in any religion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 8:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The rib bone is typically at the side of a body....it symbolizes equality by being at someone's side....the right side symbolizes the age old adage....you seat your best friend to the right or the person you trust the most at the side.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 2:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Richard, come on, are you REALLY arguing that Genesis paints men and women in an equal light?
        Well Genesis 1 does - and if you look at Genesis 2 - which seems to be a completely separate story - you will see that whereas Eve was made from a rib Adam was made from dirt - which seems to put Eve above Adam.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 8 Aug 2013 @ 3:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That is rather an interesting observation. I think the equality bit is merely that they complimented each other for their needs. Lilith was a lot like the woman I dated before my wife and I met for the first time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wally (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 12:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Whoever sex isn't fun? Oh sure meant to be private...but not fun? How would we humans not have fun reproducing willfully with each other. Women are our equals....they lead us astray from our parent's homes and basements ;-)...tell me, how boring would it be in a perfect world? I think it's the fact that Adam and Eve loved each other very deeply to a point of wanting each other badly. The King James Bible never really states what the forbidden fruit is...and as we are mortals....I'll leave your imagination to its own psychological wanderings ;-P
        
        While lust and love involve each other, fully relying on lust without love is the issue.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Amber, 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:08am
  
  Re:
  Pat Robertson thinks lusting after a woman is a crime even if she's your wife. You're only supposed to endure having to have sex if you want to make a baby. If you're a man though, you can be forgiven if you go around not just thinking about sex with other women, but actually doing it -- lots of it -- because, well, he's a man.
  
  http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/pat-robertson-cheating-comments-males-tendency-wander-19200017
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:16am
  
  Re:
  Are you saying that God cannot judge our thoughts? Do you think lusting after a woman is not a sin, and the 9th/10th commandments (depending on how you count them) don't apply?
  
  1 - No, evil/weird/pervy thoughts are common and harm nobody, actions do.
  2 - No, you can lust another woman while not having the slightest intention of leaving or betraying yours. If you are a mature adult.
  3- Yes, the Commandments apply but not as broadly as the extremism wants everybody to believe. Remember that much of the progress we achieved through the ages were considered sins at some point by the Church. Because the church is fallible, composed of fallible human beings and thankfully they evolved to accept a lot of things.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MondoGordo (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 9:06am
    
    According to traditional religious perspective ...
    is all about your soul ... not society.
    
    if it harms your soul it's sin. Thinking "impure" thoughts harms your soul, Indulging in fantasies of killing harms your soul... so these things are sins. This is why they burned witches at the stake ... not for the good of society but for the purification of their souls ... so that they would go to Heaven.
    
    So in a traditional religious sense that religious nutbag is correct.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 12:46pm
      
      Re: According to traditional religious perspective ...
      They burned witches at the stake because they didn't practice Christianity, but were followers of the old ways. It had nothing to do with impure thoughts, and just being accused of being a witch would get you burned since you had to prove that you weren't.
      
      Followers of the old religions, aka Pagans, call these The Burning Times. Read up on them.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 9:11am
  
  Re:
  You just have to read the context of the commandment to understand that lusting does not mean thinking your neighbor's wife is hot. It is lusting as in actively pursuing the chance to sleep with her. This is why it is the same as adultery because you are actually taking action and would be willing to do so.
  
  If God were going to judge everyone for little every stray thought, WHO is going to be in heaven?
  
  Suddenly everyone around you becomes suspect and your neighborhood becomes an unsavory place of sin and wretchedness.
  
  Interpreting the 10 commandments in such a micromanaging way will just lead to frustration, unhappiness and paranoia. They are meant to be rules on how a society should behave, not something to chain yourself to.
  
  Is anyone really qualified to say how God run things? Are you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 9:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Is anyone really qualified to say how God run things? Are you?"
    
    Boom, you just dismantled any authority enjoyed by religion with that very astute, very true comment....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 12:57pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Not sure how you figure that. Maybe if you assume the bible was written by man. But since man was the pen and God was the author we have his true, inspired, inerrant word.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rikuo (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 2:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh no, no no no no no no. God was the author of the Bible? Even if we take your view, that he acted through man, then that would mean that this perfect god dictated a hypocritical and self-contradictory work. We've got this book telling us that God is perfect, and loving, just and kind - while ordering the genocide of entire civilizations. Oh sure, God grows up and becomes a loving father figure in the New Testament, but that would imply that he grew, evolved, changed, in some fashion - thus meaning he wasn't perfect before, and thus, wasn't God.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 2:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You do not understand the relationship between the old testament and new. In the old we were given the law. But the law could not save us, only show us our sin. In the new testament, Jesus came to fulfill the law.
        
        There are no contradictions, only when you read things out of context. The bible is the most studied book in history. Was written by 40 authors (though really only one, God), spanned over 1000 years and 66 books and does not have contradictions.
        
        As for wiping out civilizations; that is God's judgement upon those people. We will receive our judgement upon our death. You view death as the worst thing possible because you think that is all there is. Death is not final but hell is. And so is Heaven.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 2:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Forgot to add, you stated he grew into a loving father, but he was always a loving father. The plan for the entire old testament was to send his Son to die for our sins in the new testament. Sounds like a loving father to me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 2:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No contradictions? Please, let's just start with the time of day Christ was crucified and go from there....
        
        http://www.project-reason.org/gallery3/image/102/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 2:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm a biblical scholar friend. I've studied the Bible through and through. Jesus came to teach about love and peace? What about the quotes "I come not to bring peace but a sword"? or "I come to affirm the old laws"?
        Besides, not once does the Bible actually say that God wrote it or dictated it, as compared to the Quran.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 3:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You need a study in sociology methinks...explains the symbolism. When Jesus said he was not brining peace but a sword...he was likely stating that he's cutting through the misdeeds of the Pharisees at the time. They were so focused on law they lost sight of their own sins and basically added on laws that took advantage of the Jews at the time. Jesus basically cut through the barrier they set up and said to love each other as God intended.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chargone (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 9:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Pretty sure there's surrounding context there.
        Jesus taught Love, personal peace, perhaps, but not pacifism. he became angry when faced with things which were wrong, and corrected them, in one or two cases destructively, but was always willing to give those who genuinly wanted to do better a chance to do so.
        
        He's saying (and goes on to describe in more detail) that his teachings will cause conflict. And, surprise surprise, they did, as those who saw them as a threat to their own power sought to suppress them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 1:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't think Jesus was a pacifist. We have the story about his lifetime that indicate it..heck his first miracle in literal Biblical context was turning water into wine :-3 I'd say he was a disruptive force to the dogmatic system that the Pharisees had set up that were out side of the laws of Moses.
        
        In subtext, the water to wine story could easily be interpreted as the old saying "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 1:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Silly person, everyone knows the saying is supposed to go 'When life gives you lemons, you make them combustible and burn life's house down with them'.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 7 Aug 2013 @ 3:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That belongs on a T-shirt.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 2:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        'There are no contradictions...'
        
        Yeah, about that...
        
        http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - TheOldFart (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 9:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ah, the "magic book" argument.
        
        Explain to me, what kind of idiotic, incompetent gods would use a book to transmit their commands, commands that are the only thing that can stop an evil curse that will otherwise condemn every human being to an eternity (not just 500 trillion trillion trillion trillion quadrillion billion grillion billion centuries, but an eternity) of burning in fire?
        
        Let's examine this from he beginning. Stop me if I get something wrong, but your religion basically says this:
        
        An invisible wizard conjured a universe from nothing.
        
        The invisible wizard waited around for about 10B years before starting a small gas cloud swirling that eventually resulted in a star, some planets and then, 4B years later, magically conjured some creatures called humans on one of those planets.
        
        The invisible wizard didn't like what the humans did, so he put a curse on them. A curse so powerful that it is magically transmitted from parent to child, with absolutely perfect fidelity. No human can possibly escape this curse, not even by dying in the womb before their fetus has grown out of its gills. Everyone is afflicted with this curse. Period.
        
        For unknown reasons, the wizard suddenly suffers from a case of curser's remorse, but the only way he can come up with to remove this curse is if he splits himself into three parts, casts a spell on one part of himself to make it into a human fetus, implant it into a fat, ugly Arab woman with a heavy moustache (the woman, not the fetus) and let it gestate. This curse removal business gets complicated because it requires the humans to unknowingly execute this magic piece of the wizard, then if the humans of the future telepathically communicate to the wizard that they really, truly believe that the wizard had them execute a piece of himself so that they could be freed of the curse, only then can they be freed of the curse.
        
        Now this wizard is apparently an omniscient, omnipotent and also somewhat forgetful wizard because he forgets to make any lasting record of this execution of his magical human-looking part. For a hundred years.
        
        Now at this point, this omniscient, omnipotent, and somewhat forgetful wizard apparently does some LSD, a lot of tequila, smokes a few pounds of crack plus snorts some cocaine off a dirty toilet seat and suddenly thinks "Shit, I should have arranged for some press coverage of that execution! Oh, hell, I'll just cast a magic spell on some humans and have them write it down for me".
        
        Now it might be a bit presumptuous of me to second guess this amazing, invisible wizard who can cast spells that are handed down from generation to generation with such perfect fidelity, but what in the holy fuck was the wizard thinking? A book? A freaking *book*? Really? A book in one language, before the printing press was invented, with all the unavoidable errors in manual copying and translation, he chooses to pass down his single greatest command to his followers using a book that 99% of them couldn't even read when it was first written? Really? He cares about them so much that all that stands between them and an eternity of torture is is a freaking *book*?!?
        
        I get the feeling that this particular wizard went to Durmstrang, and he didn't get particularly good grades either. I bet all the death eaters there stayed away from him because he was too mean and stupid for their tastes.
        
        Okay, so any invisible, omniscient, omnipotent, somewhat forgetful wizard capable of conjuring a universe from nothing and putting a curse that propagates with perfect fidelity for eternity could make a mistake. I mean, everyone has a bad day,right? Most of us mere mortals would have simply implanted the knowledge of our will in the humans using a very similar spell to the one he used to put the curse on them in the first place, but what do we know. Magic looks easy to us.
        
        I'm willing to grant that we all have bad days, but can anyone explain how a wizard with such amazing magical powers was so unbelievably stupid that he decided just to inspire a small handful of people in one shit hole neighborhood in one tiny country in one small corner of the Earth?
        
        Wouldn't a semi-competent wizard have said "Gee, I know, I'll inspire a few people in Rome, a dozen in Naples, maybe eight in Kirkuk, probably a couple of dozen in Athens as a lot of folks speak their language, maybe two in Plovdiv, a half dozen in Lisbon, a couple of those cute guys Rhodes with those fine-ass buns... oh yeah, ten in Carthage and maybe a few dozen in those other continents I made"
        
        But this wizard is so mind-numbingly stupid he telepathically transmits his instructions to a handful of semi-literate grunts who then make a hash of the whole thing. The spell he cast on them is so weak that they can't even agree on how many people were present at the tomb of the recently killed (spoiler: he wasn't really killed) bit of the wizard.
        
        And you think this wizard - oh, I'm sorry, you use the term "god" don't you? Sorry, just do a search and replace on "wizard" and the history of your religion reads just the same. Anyway, you think this god/wizardy thing writes a great book? Magically inspired? Telepathically inserted into the minds of the authors with unerring precision?
        
        Oh, wait, let's not forget those Nicean councils (like Hollywood sequels "Nicea: Telepathically Inspired Editors on a Rampage" followed soon thereafter by "Nicea II: The Return of the Grammar Nazis". The wizard (sorry, gods) had to magically implant the thoughts into the minds of some more humans so that they'd throw away entire books of the bible... why? Oh, that's right, because the divine inspiration spell didn't always work very well.
        
        Isn't a bitch that the wizard's (god's... mea culpa) evil curse always propagates with perfect fidelity? I mean, all we've got when it comes to dealing with this evil curse is this magically inspired book that doesn't even vaguely resemble the original scrawls of the semi-primitives who wrote it down fifty to a hundred years after the magical 1/3 of a wizard got lynched.
        
        If the bible isn't certain how many people were at the tomb of the 1/3 of the invisible wizard immediately after it was killed, how can you pretend to be so certain that it has a magical origin? If you believe it does, then can faulty magic be trusted? Is faulty magic the magic of a real wizard who is just a bit sloppy and forgetful? Or maybe of a wizard just didn't really care that much about accuracy? Or is he an evil wizard who just likes to fuck with people facing an eternity of torture by handing down two thousand years worth of translation errors and selective edits by power hungry religious rulers?
        
        Oh, how rude of me! I'm sorry! You were about to tell us something important about your magic book. Please, by all means, go ahead and tell us how it works. It's magic, right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 11:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your last comment proves your bigotry and your lack of understanding of and lack of tolerance for others beliefs.
        
        "Oh, how rude of me! I'm sorry! You were about to tell us something important about your magic book. Please, by all means, go ahead and tell us how it works. It's magic, right?"
        
        ��What leads you to that idea???
        
        I've already explained what I could...but I guess you're hungry for more ministering.
        
        My goodness it took you that long to try and get me mad this time? Well the Bible isn't a magic book...the most commonly held misconception is that as it is labeled the word of God it is therefore Christians automatically think it was written by a supreme being. The truth of the matter is far simpler. It's a guide book full of metaphors and stories...some of which did in fact happen and you'd be a fool to deny that Moses, Joshua, and Daniel existed...which teach various lessons. As an AC mentioned above...the Old Testiment teaches us about what rules we are bound by, and the New Testament teaches us how we should carry them out. The Apostle Paul wrote a ton of letters to various Christian groups who were annoying others who had different beliefs asking said groups to just live to love as Jesus did...(Ephesians is that book if I recal).
        
        By the way, if you're going to try to claim that God is an "invisible wizard", it is plainly evident you've never read into the fact that wizzards are corporeal...they are typically of the elementals of the Earth....God, since he is supposed to be omnipotent....is a supreme being in the realm of the fantasy genera. He's ethereal. So try to get it right next time OK? You're talking to a nerd here and a psychologist...a potent mix for intellectually making snide remarks. It is obvious you never read a fantasy book in your life so I'll cut you a break.
        
        Anyway, the Bible has a few correlations with known ancient historians Josephus for one) and as far as the account for Moses...the Korahn gives a better, and surprisingly accurate account of Moses...there's lots of evidence that he existed and that the Exodus from Egypt by the Israelites took place.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 2:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "some of which did in fact happen and you'd be a fool to deny that Moses, Joshua, and Daniel existed."
        
        Wally, and I say this as a friend, you want to be careful with what you say, because it doesn't make one foolish to deny that Moses existed. More to the point, it doesn't make one foolish to deny that the entire Exodus didn't happen, since that's been pretty well debunked by Israeli archeologists.
        
        And...I mean, if Exodus didn't happen, that's kind of a big hole in the whole bible story, including Jesus' stories too. And it DIDN'T happen. You sound like the sort of Christian I typically enjoy friendships with (hell, I'm marrying a Catholic), but come on....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 7:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They have found temples in Egypt that have Ramses II next to a figure that's been carved out...and it dates back to the time period when Ancient Egypt and Ethiopia became allies. Ancient Egyptians also kept meticulous records of events.
        
        How the exodus happened is debatable, but we do know of the culture of that time quite well....The 40 some years of wandering the desert was Ancient Israel literally staking their claim.
        
        Now as for the plagues: It was a Volcano. The Nile turning into a river of blood was a volcano causing a red tide affect from all the dead fish...and it caused the what...3 days of darkness....the plague of frogs came from the resulting acidity of the Nile as said volcano erupted. The plague of flies came from dead cows...the plague of boils actually was from CO2 poisoning....so the plagues were a volcano...a rather well timed one, but a volcano nonetheless.
        
        I minored in Ancient History...,
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 7:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Excuse me, but the archaeological consensus is that the Exodus did NOT happen and that the Jews were never in Egypt to begin with....
        
        http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_Exodus#cite_note-2
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 10 Aug 2013 @ 5:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        RationalWiki is a bit too literal and is biased to a degree. It's written in a way that puts people in a box rather than scoping out multiple sources for its articles like Wikipedia.
        
        The Sea of Reads, at low tide, could have crossed there.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 11 Aug 2013 @ 2:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What does it matter where they might have crossed, if the odds of the events leading up to it happening at all are strongly in doubt?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 1:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The Quran and Tohra and the Bible all give fairly concise ideas as to things that may have actually caused the 7 plagues.....the plauges needed to be explained some how and it seems to support evidence of a volcanic erruption at least somewhere in the region. The locusts and the flies behaved in ways that are consistent with what insects usually do when escaping a volcanic eruption....they get away from it.
        
        The boils or legions and the death of Egypts first born can easily be tied to CO2 poisoning...
        
        The frogs with the typical Ph change in the water imherrent with a volcanic eruption thereby making it too basic or too acidic for them to survive.
        
        And the blood in the Nile could've been caused by slight tremors. The red color could have loosed red clay sentimentiary deposits and after a trip to the Grand Canyon after it has rained...and the dessert dust washed away...blood red rocks show up.
        
        So when one really thinks about how the natural world really sort of works and you put it up with the rather concise descriptions attributing to the plagues given by all three scriptural accounts, it starts to make sense that whomever wrote it.
        
        Funny thing with Moses is that his existence is vastly more probable because the language written in the Tohra is Aramaic....which was around as a written language since before Ramses II.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 4:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Would explain the similarities between differing religions regarding that time period that you mention, though I'd say a big boost to that idea would be finding proof of a volcanic eruption, as one big enough to affect an entire country would have left plenty of other evidence.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TheOldFart (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 5:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If if if if if if if if if if if if... sounds like an epistemology fit for Easter Bunnieists and Santa Clausists.
        
        "If wishes were horses we'd all be eating steak"
        
        That has to be the lamest stream of completely stupid apologies ever proposed in a single post.
        
        The bible also says the sun stopped going around the Earth, that bats are birds, that rabbits chew cud, that daughters can be sold as slaves, that light was created before the stars, that whales were created before reptiles, plants were made before the sun, that the Earth is flat and the sky a metal disk held up by four pillars, that people lived 800+ years, that all humans spoke one language, that David's army was more than 1.5M men, and that unicorns and dragons exist.
        
        Oh yeah, and what about that talking snake? What apologies do you have for that one? Maybe there was a really good ventriloquist the bible forgot to mention the wizard conjuring from the void?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 8:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        While it's nice that you're looking to scientific explanations for what occurred in the bible, you're still missing the point: the Exodus story DID NOT HAPPEN. The archaeological evidence is absolutely in on that one, making looking for the causes of the plagues described within that story a moot endeavor.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TheOldFart (profile), 16 Aug 2013 @ 8:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Randomly suggesting that it could have been a rare disease caused by bird farts is not "looking to scientific explanations"
        
        It's simply the core technique used by anti-science types everywhere, from Islam to Inhofe. Climate change? "Well, it could be caused by a distant planet that radiates invisible rays at Earth, maybe that's what is causing it." Biological evolution? "Well maybe the global flood made it that way and it's just a silly accident that every single line of empirical evidence from geophysics to genetics support it"
        
        You can't prove a negative, hence you can't prove it wasn't bird farts, so that means that the supernatural gods could have done it, right?
        
        Cherry picking bits of the bible and pretending that "it could be" is no more rational or valid than denying climate science, denying biological evolution or denying that the Earth is round.
        
        The whole point of science is to eliminate what we know is most likely false.
        
        The claim that it took this completely invisible tribe of 2 million people 40 years to complete a 3 week trip is patently false from every possible perspective. From the fact that no other record of them exists to the fact that 2M people could not have found enough food. Trying to explain how that could happen is like looking for explanations for how a bowling ball *could* jump from the floor and stick to the ceiling is not "looking to scientific explanations", it's pig-headed and infantile behaviour on the part of so-called adults.
        
        What truly amazes me about the willful ignorance of bible literalists is the fact that they can't recognize magic numbers. How many times does that number 40 occur in the bible? It's a magic number, just as 3, 7 and 12 are. Magic numbers (i.e. numerology) incorporated from superstitions and traditions that predate the bible by hundreds (probably thousands) of years.
        
        Mohammad was 40 when he supposedly became telepathic, 40 days of Lent, 40 days from death to ascension, 40 days and 40 nights, the 12 Olympians, the 12 leaders of Islam, the 12 labors of Hercules... ain't no coinky-dince that ignorant ancient cultures shared certain magic numbers. It's truly mind boggling that such superstitions persist in an "educated" society.
        
        Though if you ever need proof that there is no such thing as coincidence though, all you have to do is search for Ray Comfort and his infamous banana video e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfucpGCm5hY
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TheOldFart (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 7:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I was hoping that you would take a hint from the quality of the ridicule, but apparently you're hell bent on displaying proof that irrational and dishonest behaviour is the hallmark of the Christian fanatic.
        
        First, please stop repeating the lie/distortion about Josephus. Anyone who has given the history more than a cursory once over knows that Josephus recorded one incredibly small bit of *third hand* observation. He wrote down what he was told the Christians did/believed. Period.
        
        There are no contemporaneous accounts of the existence of Jesus. The evidence that Jesus existed is identical to the evidence that Thor, Ganesha and Batman existed: someone who never met those characters talked about them in a book.
        
        Yes, the OT teaches you what rules you should obey. Apparently you're unaware that the NT does too. What did the Jesus character say? Something about not one iota of the law...? Maybe you should actually read the book?
        
        And what laws does the OT present? Laws that Christians pick and and choose from regardless of their appearance in the magic book. For instance, when was the last time you killed an adulterous pair? A homosexual? When was the last time you ate shellfish? How can you reconcile this horrible ban on slavery when the Jesus character went out of his way to make sure it was known that Christian slaves must obey their master even if their master isn't Christian, and that daughters can legitimately be sold into slavery?
        
        Here's the question that Christians are invariably unable to answer honestly: what specific characteristic uniquely distinguishes the bible from all the other books about gods/devils/angels/faeries/superheroes?
        
        Their inability to plainly answer that question speaks volumes about their thought processes (or lack thereof) I can pick up any science and book and explain in simple terms the reasons the book should be taken seriously, yet those books don't contain clear instructions on how and when murder, rape, slavery, infanticide and genocide are appropriate.
        
        Christians on the other hand want people to take the rules about killing, rape and slavery completely seriously without being able to give a reason why the book should be followed. Pat Robertson is not out of line here, he's very much on message: do what the gods inspire you to do, say what they inspire you to say. Be tolerant of his beliefs! Noah, one of the great heroes of Christian traditions, is revered for doing just that. Abraham is revered for being willing to commit infanticide for his gods regardless of what other humans might thing of a shitbag who was willing to murder his own children based on telepathically transmitted orders from an invisible wizard.
        
        I find it interesting that you choose only to focus on my entirely correct use of the term 'wizard' yet you found no objection in the basic story itself. That's good because it is an accurate description of Christianity. My description of the perfect spread of the curse of original sin, and my description of the incredibly inept method of handing down the secret of the cure for the curse is also accurate.
        
        Instead of addressing how irrational the Christian narrative of events is, you choose not only to ignore the 1/3 of your magic wizard that was corporeal, you also deny the Old Testament. Surely you haven't forgotten that your god walked on the Earth and wrestled with Jacob in Genesis 23:24?
        
        Regarding your last fallacy (lie/distortion) I believe you haven't cited any specific piece of "lots of evidence" for the exodus is because there is none. Doesn't the OT put a prohibition on telling lies? It's one of the better known flaws in the biblical account of history.
        
        Like most atheists, I know the bible extremely well. I've also spent four decades now challenging Christians to think rationally about their magic book. I'm coming up on 30 years of presenting those challenges online (yes, since USENET days) Based on that experience, I can say that Pat Robertson is the ultimate Christian, in the same way that the 9/11 hijackers were the ultimate Muslims. None of them have any concern for their own lives, the lives of others. What matters is what their gods instructed them to do.
        
        Whether it's destroying the lives of non-believers in the immediate sense like the Saudis who crashed the planes, or killing non-believers in the indirect sense as Robertson advocates by banning reproductive health care, contraception, and passing laws in Africa that call for the death penalty for homosexual acts, they all follow their faiths to the letter.
        
        As for my "bigotry", why are *you* so intolerant of other beliefs? Why don't you simply tolerate the beliefs of those Saudis who crashed the planes into those buildings? Why don't you just tolerate the beliefs of paedophiles? Leave them alone, their beliefs aren't hurting you, are they?
        
        Picture this: You're in a small, very crowded room standing shoulder to shoulder with 100 other people. There's one small hose that lets the air into the room so that everyone can breathe. There's some fat, stupid guy who doesn't believe that air is needed so survive, so he's standing on the hose and cutting off the air to everyone. He has absolute faith that his gods will provide what he needs.
        
        His gods name are Mickey, Minnie and Goofy.
        
        Do you advise being tolerant of his beliefs?
        
        Welcome to planet Earth in the 21st century. We've got overpopulation, rapidly dwindling resources, a climate that may go catastrophically wrong in the next few decades/centuries, we've got massive wars by Christians in the name of oil, we've got a Christian government that can't be bothered to even bring up the subject of regulating hazardous material manufacturing and storage facilities located right next to schools and hospitals because they're far too busy trying to pass laws codifying biblical laws against homosexuals being allowed to love and marry.
        
        There is one pipe delivering the vital supply of rational thought and science that provides the only hope for addressing these real life-or-death issues.
        
        The fat, dumbfuck Christians are standing on that pipe. They're molesting children by stuffing their heads with irrational beliefs that not only won't help those children survive, but will actually prevent or delay those kids from even realizing that rational action is desperately needed. The Christians have absolute faith that Mickey, Minnie, Goofy, the father, the son and that wild and wacky "holy ghost" are going to magically act in the supernatural world and have some measurable effect in the natural world, to magically save us from our own actions.
        
        You molest children's minds. You cause endless misery and suffering to the human race (today and in the future) by your continued insistence that the supernatural world is real. It's the 21st century. It is time for rational adults to think for themselves and reason out what is right and what is wrong and how best to implement fair and equitable laws and pursuits. It's the 21st century. The inherent evil of Christian moral relativism should not be tolerated any longer simply because humans as a species cannot afford to tolerate such primitive ideas and expect to survive into the 22nd or 23rd centuries.
        
        Call me bigoted, but there *are* moral absolutes, in spite of what Christians believe about supernatural beings and worlds.
        
        In short, you're fat, you're stupid, and you're standing on my air hose. Don't expect me to expire quietly while you stand there stupidly unconcerned in your state of blissed out ignorance. Get the fuck off the hose.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 7:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "There are no contemporaneous accounts of the existence of Jesus. The evidence that Jesus existed is identical to the evidence that Thor, Ganesha and Batman existed: someone who never met those characters talked about them in a book."
        
        That isn't strictly true. There is some good evidence that a heretical rabbi by the name of Jesus did indeed exist around the time the bible describes. However, nothing described in the bible is a first hand account of this person and all first-hand evidence suggests he was just a radical preacher, not The Christ.
        
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
        
        "Regarding your last fallacy (lie/distortion) I believe you haven't cited any specific piece of "lots of evidence" for the exodus is because there is none."
        
        That is correct. In fact, the overwhelming archaeological evidence is that it absolutely did NOT happen. And that's REALLY important for Jews and Christians alike, since it sets the stage for the primary claims of each religion. The Jews claim to Israel and Christian's beliefs in Christ, his "fulfilled prophecies", and his claim to be God's son. Christ referred to the myth, which was a lie. That's a massive problem for Christ's believers....
        
        And you might want to tone down the anger a bit, friend. Nobody is going to be convinced of the truth if they're too pissed off to listen....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TheOldFart (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 10:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You misunderstand. Words are tools to stir emotions and stirring emotions is the goal. Obviously you know that, but I think within the context of the "war" between the religious and the rational you've made some incorrect/stereotypical assumptions.
        
        I don't have to sway the crowd and get applause, I just have to make some of them question their own position.
        
        Fortunately for the rational side of world, there are apologists like Wally who make the perfect backstop for a solo game of forcing people to question their own position.
        
        Wally is lost to the world. He will believe in his fantasies of the supernatural to the bitter end. A million people could die in front of his eyes and if he convinces himself that is what his god wanted (which is always the case), then their fear and suffering wouldn't bother him at all.
        
        Indeed, all those children starving and dying in Africa because Christians won't allow birth control to even be mentioned, yet tens of millions of Christians never lose one wink of sleep over it. True Christians can look at Kevin Carter's famous photo and then pacify their genuine humanist response of outrage with "oh those silly gods, they work in mysterious ways" and sleep well that night. They truly believe that child's suffering was not just good and acceptable behaviour on the part of their gods, they believe it was a profound expression of love. That's monumentally sick, but it's the all too predictable Christian response.
        
        However for every Wally there are a hundred people who were simply raised not to question Christian dogma and they've just never considered the facts: that gods are imaginary, that morals don't come from books or from gods, that books aren't magic, that evil spells don't exist, and the core principles of Christians are ridiculous and intellectual bankrupt at best, and at worst pure evil on steroids.
        
        They don't think about their beliefs because they have no desire or motivation to ask. No Christian is going to suggest that they think rationally about them and most atheists are too polite or too far in the closet to bring the subject up.
        
        However, if you introduce one knowledgeable and very out atheist who pisses those people off so badly that they have to look deeply into their beliefs to find something to hurl back... well, hey. Look at what that "angry" old man did to them.
        
        Everything I said about Christian beliefs is accurate, but not using the words they want to hear. Invisible wizards, evil spells that spread from generation to generation with perfect fidelity and the monstrously idiotic concept of using a magic book to pass down the key to being freed from this evil curse. They hate the use of those words because they've been raised to believe that their supernatural beings and super power are "different" somehow. They're not, they're just standard tales of the supernatural.
        
        The only thing that Christianity ever added to earlier traditions/religions/philosophies is some absolutely 100% batshit crazy crap about an evil curse and the magic telephatic incantations needed to break it.
        
        It doesn't matter where the people who read my words look in their bible, it doesn't matter what their priests, bishops or other shaman tell them, when they hear or read "original sin", "evil curse" is going to flash into their minds, and they're not going to be able to come up with a satisfactory way to differentiate those two ideas to their *own* satisfaction. What I said won't change them, but what they think will. Once that particular door is open a crack, no rational person can shut it again.
        
        Religious people are also looking at the idiotic things Pat Robertson said and what that the "true believer" Christians have written here, and they're turned off by what they read. The apologetics and the endless avoidance of the key points I made do not sit well with thinking people. They read the lame-ass (non)responses to the points I made and they like those responses even less than what I wrote, because they recognize the apologetics as lame and intellectually dishonest.
        
        Wally will stick fingers in his ears and shout LALALALALALALALAL, but I'll bet one or two people who read my words will be pissed off about them for a long time. Maybe their eyes will open someday and they'll say "That guy was a total asshole... but he was right, rational thought works and religion doesn't". If so, I win. If not, they lose and I break even. I'm good with that, I did my part to end religious tyranny of the mind, that's the best I can do.
        
        Speaking of minds (or the lack thereof) I forgot to drive a stake through the "Newton advanced human progress and he was religious" idiocy. It's true, Newton was brilliant in some ways, however the time he spent doing science was almost insignificant compared to the time he completely wasted on pseudo-science gibberish.
        
        Newton believed he was a "special messenger" from god. He was also a firm believer in astrology and alchemy. In other words, he was a human being with all the normal human frailties and he pissed away a great deal of time he could have been advancing human progress even more than he did. Superstition (including religion) is always a drag on human progress.
        
        Newton's bullshit was long ago forgotten (except by apologists) but his testable science and provable mathematics got our rovers to freakin' Mars and Voyagers to (almost) interstellar space! What have astrology, alchemy and religion accomplished during that same time frame? 900 numbers, infinite free energy youtube videos megachurches, televangelists, homophobic and misogynist campaigns to take away basic human rights for no rational reason whatsoever. Whoopee.
        
        For some reason none of the Christians never want to brag "Newton was an astrologer" or "Newton was an alchemist and he advanced human progress too". They only want to cherry pick the religion part.
        
        I wonder why?
        
        (why I do believe I just poked a hole in my cheek... again. Fucking hell that hurts!)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 8 Aug 2013 @ 12:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Newton's bullshit was long ago forgotten (except by apologists) but his testable science and provable mathematics got our rovers to freakin' Mars and Voyagers to (almost) interstellar space! What have astrology, alchemy and religion accomplished during that same time frame? 900 numbers, infinite free energy youtube videos megachurches, televangelists, homophobic and misogynist campaigns to take away basic human rights for no rational reason whatsoever. Whoopee."
        
        LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!! Newton was one of the first known astrophysicists....and an Astronomer...there is a huge difference. I shall inform you now that my only intent is to inform you. In no way am I striving to be hypocritical of my own beliefs...this is just too much for me to hold back as I see huge ignorance and hypocrisy out of you.
        
        It's funny how you cling to the same argument that Religion has no place in the world because it blocks it. You are really that willing to ignorantly deny scientific advances occurred solely based on the simple fact that said certain scientific discoveries were made by a religious individual? I was merely pointing out that religious people, in spite of your erroneous claims, did in fact help forward progress in this world. I even pointed out who. I never claimed that their faith was the cause of their discovery. To say that my intellect fails me because of my beliefs is the single most ignorant claim of all....Sir Isaac Newton studied a rather interesting force of nature we smart folks, religious or not, call gravity. He was already a mathematical genius and his works contributed to a lot of the field of science we now call physics.
        
        Astrology is the religious concept that the movements of how the movements of planets and stars through the constellations affect your life here on Earth. It's a regular and concise system of movements concerning constellations. Outside of knowing which star or planet is where at any given time, there isn't any correlation between it and Astronomy.
        
        Astronomy is the Scientific Study of the movements they make, and the study of various astro-phenomenon that occurs in outer space.
        
        The bottom line is that Copernicus, Galileo, and Sir Isaac Newton were religious. They contributed to the world as much as their atheist counterparts did...and you still group that into religious ignorance?
        
        Any other Atheists here now see why we religious types sometimes facepalm at some of your claims? Sorry, I know that not all Atheists are to blame for such ignorance which is why I respect your rights to believe the way you do. The non-anti-theist Atheists are doubting Thomas's in my book so I try my best not to press my beliefs on you because y'all are only waiting for evidence one way or the other. However, certain types of ignorance such as displayed by TheOldFart really do not help your cause. We religious folks have them too...they are called radical zealots....or that these people are so delusional that they refuse to be worldly and sensitive to other beliefs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 8 Aug 2013 @ 1:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Any other Atheists here now see why we religious types sometimes facepalm at some of your claims? Sorry, I know that not all Atheists are to blame for such ignorance which is why I respect your rights to believe the way you do.
        
        And it's too your credit that you do, just because you disagree with someone, does not mean you have to personally attack them and sling insults left and right as this poster seems to constantly do, as that just undermines any credibility you and your arguments might have otherwise had.
        
        Now personally, I don't care for religion in general. I disagree with the idea of believing something that cannot be demonstrably proven through tests and observations. I also don't care for how it separates people into a 'them vs. us, the religious vs. the non'. But as long as those that hold those beliefs aren't trying to force them on others that don't share those beliefs, whether through the laws or just pestering/harassing people to convert, I try and maintain a 'live and let live' way of looking at it, though I will point out inconsistencies in claims if they bring them up, as I would hope they would do the same for me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 8 Aug 2013 @ 2:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "In short, you're fat, you're stupid, and you're standing on my air hose. Don't expect me to expire quietly while you stand there stupidly unconcerned in your state of blissed out ignorance. Get the fuck off the hose."
        
        ~TheOldFart regarding me
        
        My issue isn't with you That One Guy. Never was.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 8 Aug 2013 @ 3:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Good to hear. Have fun with the zealot then I guess.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 8 Aug 2013 @ 1:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Wally is lost to the world. He will believe in his fantasies of the supernatural to the bitter end. A million people could die in front of his eyes and if he convinces himself that is what his god wanted (which is always the case), then their fear and suffering wouldn't bother him at all."
        
        You assume too much then. I have plenty of evidence to convince me of your ignorance.
        
        "Newton believed he was a "special messenger" from god. He was also a firm believer in astrology and alchemy. In other words, he was a human being with all the normal human frailties and he pissed away a great deal of time he could have been advancing human progress even more than he did. Superstition (including religion) is always a drag on human progress."
        
        In the 16th century, alchemy was actually what we know as chemistry today. Sir Isaac Newton made the discovery that you cannot turn any metal into gold. We get the word "Chemist" from the then used term "Alchemist". It was their "delusional" beliefs that led them to the scientific trial and error methods we use today in making discoveries concerning materials.
        
        Here's the entomology of that word "Chemistry":
        
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry_%28etymology%29
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki /Chemistry
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_chemistry
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 8 Aug 2013 @ 1:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        " Maybe their eyes will open someday and they'll say "That guy was a total asshole... but he was right, rational thought works and religion doesn't"."
        
        How is that statement rational?
        
        "Newton's bullshit was long ago forgotten (except by apologists) but his testable science and provable mathematics got our rovers to freakin' Mars and Voyagers to (almost) interstellar space! "
        
        Don't forget it landed human beings on the Moon too.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2013 @ 9:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "we've got a Christian government that can't be bothered to even bring up the subject of regulating hazardous material manufacturing and storage facilities located right next to schools and hospitals because they're far too busy trying to pass laws codifying biblical laws against homosexuals being allowed to love and marry."
        
        Do you actually believe what you write?
        
        Do you really think that government cannot regulate hazardous material because it is "too busy"? And that any time that IS spent is totally the fault of your opponents and not your side?
        
        "we've got massive wars by Christians in the name of oil"
        
        Wars over oil have nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with the economy. I mean, you even say so: they are "over oil". Do you think we should have just let Iraq invade Kuwait and then Saudi Arabia? Do you think that we definitely would have not gone to war if an atheist had happened to be President at that time?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 10:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Do you think that we definitely would have not gone to war if an atheist had happened to be President at that time?"
        
        Not only agreed, but I'd go you one better: an atheist president would have been more likely to have recognized the Kurds as an ally and would have finished Saddam off in the 90's instead of letting him fester like a cancer for another decade. The eye would have been on the true enemy: Islamic facism, chiefly in the govt. of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 12:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And Israel...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 1:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I was hoping that you would take a hint from the quality of the ridicule, but apparently you're hell bent on displaying proof that irrational and dishonest behaviour is the hallmark of the Christian fanatic."
        
        If your ridicule were of any quality at all in what you were saying, You would have converted me by now.
        
        The thing about ridicule is that the more of it thrown at my core beliefs, the more my core beliefs tell me to still love you as a brother. When you ridicule someone, your only goal is to prove them wrong by attempting to humiliate that person. So far I have given mostly logical, kind, and loving matter of factness on explaining my interpretations of my core values as a Christian. The only thing you've done is make fun of beliefs that don't match yours.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 9:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    "You just have to read the context of the commandment to understand that lusting does not mean thinking your neighbor's wife is hot. It is lusting as in actively pursuing the chance to sleep with her."
    
    Lusting/coveting is not the same as actively pursing, by definition, and I don't see any obvious "context" that would change the meaning like that. A fleeting thought isn't a sin, but dwelling on it (even if you don't "actively pursue") can be.
    
    "If God were going to judge everyone for little every stray thought, WHO is going to be in heaven?"
    
    If everyone who ever sinned was barred from heaven, it would be pretty empty. You're not going to "earn" heaven - we pretty much all fall short - but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try. And God can forgive sins.
    
    "Is anyone really qualified to say how God run things? Are you?"
    
    Most of us are not lawyers and are thus unqualified to interpret the law, but we do it all the time in these comments. Since when does being unqualified stop anyone from expressing what they think is true?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TheOldFart (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:27pm
  
  Re:
  No, the Jesus character DID NOT say that. Or 99% of the other things attributed to him. Look up "Jesus Seminar", and in particular have a look at the educated opinions of 150 mostly reasonable "mainstream" bible scholars as to what Jesus actually did say:
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar#Sayings_of_Jesus
  
  Strangely, he never said "I will fuck with Pat Robertson's tiny brain in about 1950 years, don't let me forget to set an alarm"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 8:34pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Don't expect us Christians to believe that Jesus didn't say something based on that seminar. Among other things, the seminar said "The empty tomb is a fiction � Jesus was not raised bodily from the dead." The resurrection of the body is one of the core tenants of Christianity.
    
    And as it says in the "criticisms" section:
    
    '... I cannot understand how, if a majority ... thought a saying authentic or probably authentic, the "weighted average" turned out to be "probably inauthentic". A voting system that produces a result like this ought to be scrapped.'
    
    "it requires the assumption that someone, about a generation removed from the events in question, radically transformed the authentic information about Jesus that was circulating at that time, superimposed a body of material four times as large, fabricated almost entirely out of whole cloth, while the church suffered sufficient collective amnesia to accept the transformation as legitimate."
    
    It also seems bizarre that you would reference a "Jesus character" and then debate what he did or did not say. Either he existed, in which case referring to him as a "character" serves no purpose, or he did not, in which case it is meaningless to debate what he "actually" said.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tara, 7 Aug 2013 @ 12:42pm
  
  Re: Anonymous Coward
  Wow, you think lust is a sin? It's perfectly healthy and you've got some issues of your own to deal with.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:02am

Hyperbole much ? I think we have enough real economic/political issues without dragging religious views into the discussion.

All he said that violent entertainment (like videogames, television, books) makes one less sensitive to god (I interpret "god" as "nature"). I think its true to some extent, compare ourselves with the 60s or our forefathers who founded the constitution, they achieved much more than the present generation, where our kids can't even finish their homework without google.

Again, I don't see anything wrong with violent entertainment, but anything done in extreme does have a numbing effect on our brains. I believe cultural acceptance for violence is more nowdays than before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:07am
  
  Re:
  "All he said that violent entertainment (like videogames, television, books) makes one less sensitive to god (I interpret "god" as "nature")."
  
  That is certainly NOT what he said. His quote of Jesus makes his point plain: the thought of the crime is as bad as the crime itself. It's a "virtual" crime in the same way video game crimes are "virtual" crimes, or sins.
  
  I'm not quite sure how you missed that part....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael, 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    I'm not quite sure how you missed that part....
    
    It was a miracle.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 9:05am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      On a related note, with the absolute rise in camera-enabled phones in everyone's pocket, do you ever find that there is a substantial lack of miracles being recorded in this day and age? Same with UFOs and ghosts and etc.
      
      It just seems suspicious is all.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 3:11pm
    
    Re: Re:
    He said "it isn't that God's going to send you to hell or anything, you just miss out on that precious presence of God". Yes, he also said "if you're murdering somebody in cyberspace in a sense you're performing the act" (emphasis added). I think this whole article is blown out of proportion.
    
    And I can't believe I just defended Pat Robertson. Blech, thanks a lot Tim.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 8:48pm
  
  Re:
  Studies of the effect of games on the brain do not support your suppositions. Try again.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:03am

and where does praying for an assassination fit in?
or is it only when it's done 'with a computer', does it count?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Transmitte (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:08am

Honestly..
Why give Patty-cakes any more publicity? Those of us that are somewhat rooted in reality know this guy is pretty much out the door with Alzheimer's or the onset of elderly dementia. Let him flail and rant until his clock winds down, which hopefully will be soon.

I get where you're coming from, but anytime we give Patty-cakes or any of the members of the hyper evans. the 700 dur's club any press is just another reason for them to want to hang around.

That said, I must be a present day Hitler, Jeffery Dahmer and Pol Pot all wrapped into a nice chunky bundle of horrible according to our favorite dipstick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:40am
  
  Re: Honestly..
  "Why give Patty-cakes any more publicity?"
  
  Simply it's vast entertainment value. Schadenfreude. It's as simple as that.
  
  And because they can't really stand up for themselves on this, I will take offense to your statement for them. It's offensive and to degrade Alzheimer's patients for their illness of which they have no control by insinuating that Robertson is a member of their group.
  
  PS. Perhaps it's "Patty-cakes" instead of pancakes that they were trying to protest against and just got a little confused.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:10am

It cuts both ways. If thoughts are as bad as the act, thinking and acting as if we know Gods will for another individual is tantamount to purporting oneself to be a diety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lesath (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:11am

Man, is he talking about online multi player or single player or both. If it's multi player, I'm not doing that bad. If it's single player or both, I've probably killed 750k people/aliens/NPC's in my game playing life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
limbodog (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:13am

Huh. What about non-human sentients?
Do I have to atone for all the Space Invaders� I've killed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:13am

Pat has a sit-down with God every year
watch?v=eDdD74OwexY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:17am

What if I murder evil demons in a videogame? Am I sinner Pat?
According to my Diablo 3 profile I've murdered over 330,000 demons in my Diablo 3 career, including 12,000 'elite' demons that are much more dangerous. I've even killed a bunch of prime evil demons like 50+ times, the kings of the demons themselves!

Does that make me an evil sinner who's done the unforgivable crime of murdering 330,000 innocent people, or a big hero more holy then any real life exorcist? Real life exorcists claim to do no more then 200 exorcisms a year, a far cry from killing 330,000 demons in their lifetime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael Mock, 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:21am

Heh.
Pat Robertson: "Murder committed in video games is no different than real life murder."

...And looking at porn is no different than having sex with, um, two-dimensional women.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:21am

Guilty, guilty, guilty!
When Robertson was screeding on about adultery in thought, I was seeing "Guilty, Guilty, Guilty!" emblazoned over his image...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dirkmaster (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:27am

Well of course
an imaginary entity would take a dim view of killing other imaginary entities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:32am
  
  Re: Well of course
  do you mean, like what is in the bible ?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ltlw0lf (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:36am
  
  Re: Well of course
  an imaginary entity would take a dim view of killing other imaginary entities.
  
  I don't know, last time I heard that imaginary entity had god mode turned on. Its like the invincible scorpion in Serious Sam if you pirate the game...kinda hard to kill an imaginary entity with god mode turned on (and when you have god mode on yourself, you just sit there until you both run out of ammo.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:30am

I am pretty sure I've seen this guy playing WoW and ganking noobs in Goldshire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andreas (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:30am

Well, maybe we can take this the other way. If I have to go to prison for a crime, maybe you could send my avatar to a virtual prison instead? Because, in a sense I'm serving my time, whether you like it or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andreas (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:32am

BTW: A friend of mine keeps hating on porn, telling how bad the industry is and all. A week ago I found out that she's never seen a single porn movie ever. Talk about blind people and colors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike-2 Alpha (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:37am

Well, then I'm screwed. Forget first person shooters, I've engaged in nuclear warfare in the Civilization games. For that matter, my usual method for conquering planets in Spore is to destroy their environment until they can't support life, then terraform them back to my liking.

Forget Hitler, I think I'm moving into Xenu territory here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Monkey with Attitude, 6 Aug 2013 @ 10:01am
  
  Re:
  Hell i played Defcon, you know EARTH WIDE ANNIHALATION... Im in the Billions on that, and Galatic Civs, i was sending 5-10 Billion Soldiers at a time to conquer a planet (average game is 20-50 planets = 500 Billion of my soldiers alone, not counting what they squashed so not its trillions... ), so MAO, Stalin, and Hitler dont have a spec on me... Im screwed LOL
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rikuo (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 2:28pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Pffft...amateur. I've played Universe Sandbox and destroyed entire GALAXIES in that for shits and giggles. Should Patty-cakes be able to call me a monster of apocalyptic levels?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:40am

I've murdered the entire population of the world countless times over just playing Pandemic 2.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:52am

So as a healer in many MMO's I have also resurrected, healed and sacrificed myself for countless people so in essence I can pretty much say that Jesus is an amateur... or where was he going with this?
If murdering the pixel people is real murder; wouldn't that make game creators gods? Holy cow that is alot of competition right there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- McCrea (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:56am
  
  Re:
  St.A.C.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - A Monkey with Attitude, 6 Aug 2013 @ 10:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    think about that statement... EA is a "god" ... the horror the horror!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bergman (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 2:00pm
  
  Re:
  The commandment is that the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God must be the head of the pantheon...nowhere in the commandments does it say you can't worship other gods as subservient to Him.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Unspoken, 6 Aug 2013 @ 2:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Context and doctrine. You have neither.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonoymous Cowherd, 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:52am

Well if you want to think all real-life...
It is not possible to kill a video game character, because video game characters are not alive. You pretend to kill them and they pretend to die, that's all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
McCrea (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:54am

no comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike-2 Alpha (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:58am

On a more serious note, my brother just pointed out that this logic would also condemn anyone who played cops and robbers, cowboys and indians, or so much as picked up a G.I. Joe as a kid.

I'd add D&D to the list, but everyone knows that's just straight up devil worship anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:58am

Simple solution to all of this...
Someone just needs to create a game with a virtual pope virtually atone you for for your virtual sins. Then gamers can just play that one afterwards and all this is taken care of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:59am
  
  Re: Simple solution to all of this...
  ....my mind is blown not only by your idea, but by the fact that one church or another hasn't already done this as a way to bring in revenue....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 8:02am
    
    Re: Re: Simple solution to all of this...
    I was thinking the same thing right after I submitted it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 8:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Simple solution to all of this...
      You need to patent this idea and get to work on it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 8:08am
    
    Re: Re: Simple solution to all of this...
    Probably wouldn't be so successful now that I think about it. Of course it would have to have the always online DRM, with an In-app purchase offering requirement in order to receive said atonement which would pretty much doom the game to failure.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 8:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Simple solution to all of this...
      Maybe every once in a while, you get some freebies - and/or unlock achievements the more often you use it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wally (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 8:42am
    
    Re: Re: Simple solution to all of this...
    They saw WisdomTree go under....there is a plethora of bad religious games. About the only tolerable one is WisdomTree's "Bible Adventures".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous, 6 Aug 2013 @ 4:31pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Simple solution to all of this...
      Holy NES emulation, Batman...er, Wally. Do you have that downloaded too?
      Is it wrong to wish they had cheat codes for such a game?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wally (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 8:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple solution to all of this...
        Not just that...I own the physical copy of it. A local bible store used to rent that game out for a week at a time...I found my copy at a local used game store near my home town. I grew up with that game and it's surprisingly a good game...except for Baby Moses...that game was hard.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wally (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 8:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple solution to all of this...
        For the cartridge's Baby Moses and David game...yes...oh definitely yes...codes would definitely be helpful...especially the Baby Moses game where you're his mother and you have to carry him above your head...and one hit...just one hit...baby Moses flies out of your hands and bounces like a freaking ball into the Nile River...or randomly lands a few screens back....if he lands in the river, you can finish the level but since you did a "Great Job" of "Finishing The Level" you start back at the beginning in stead of advancing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rikuo (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 4:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Simple solution to all of this...
      You're calling BIBLE ADVENTURES a good game? Here, listen to the wise words of the Angry Video Game Nerd
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOQ0QPGJusI
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rikuo (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 4:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple solution to all of this...
        Sorry wrong link, that was a guy replying to AVGN
        this is the one I meant
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkNvQYiM6bw
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 8:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple solution to all of this...
        AVGN picked on it because it was Christmas time. Most of the complaints he brings to the table from the "Baby Moses" and "David and Goliath" game...the latter of which, quite unfortunately, doesn't involve giants :-(
        
        That being said, the Noah's Ark game is a hidden gem :-3 Rikou I invite you to play it....you'll get a kick out of it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bergman (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 2:10pm
  
  Re: Simple solution to all of this...
  You wouldn't even need a pope.
  
  Just find a Catholic priest who is also a gamer, and confess to him online.
  
  "Bless me Father, for I have sinned. It has been one game day since I have last confessed. And I accuse myself of the following sins: today I murdered 43 orcs, 52 goblins, 19 furbolgs and a dragon. I lusted after three blood elves that were probably men in reality and felt avarice for Bobthetauren's new shoulder armor. For these and all the sins of my past life, I ask pardon of God, penance, and absolution from you, Father."
  
  Hey, why not? If virtual murder is a sin, then virtual confession would work the same way as an in-person confession. Jesus can certainly go online as well as the next divine being.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 2:36pm
    
    Re: Re: Simple solution to all of this...
    The whole point was not to find a good way to get atonement for these "sins" but rather find a way for the churches to efficiently capitalize on the need to get atonement for these "sins."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 2:29pm
  
  Re: Simple solution to all of this...
  The virtual pope had better be a space lizard pope, no fogey old white men, we've had enough of them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 8:01am

Somehow...
I get the feeling that one if not more of the week's funniest comments will come from this article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jasmine Charter, 6 Aug 2013 @ 8:13am

It's all REAL!
Don't you know... playing monopoly makes you guilty of greed!

And playing Candyland makes you guilty of gluttony.

Playing cops and robbers makes you guilty of murder.

And the list goes on.

I'm sorry, but that's not what the Bible REALLY teaches.

I love how certain religions and people follow the LETTER of the Bible on certain things and then say other things are "symbolic", etc.

It must be nice to have a pick and choose religion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 8:18am

Does that mean when I play something like Spore or Black and White I am literally God myself?

Well, as my new position as God of several universes, I can safely say Fuck Off Pat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 8:19am

Reading must be sin too then...
So, you take that to the next logical conclusion, if I imagine what I'm reading as I read it - then any time I read about a murder, I must have murdered someone.

God forbid anyone read the bible.

(see what I did there?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 8:56am

The Mongolia hoards WISH they got the kind of body counts I used to roll up in GTA 2.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rich Fiscus (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 8:58am

Why is anybody talking about what this guy says. He is not, in fact a senile, doddering, or batshit crazy old man. He just plays one on TV. If you don't like what he says stop giving him all the free promotion. The worst thing you can do to people like that is simply ignore them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 9:51am
  
  Response to: Rich Fiscus on Aug 6th, 2013 @ 8:58am
  Just because we ignore him doesn't mean he's being ignored as a whole. He has followers, and they vote. Like it or not, he has influence, and that means we have to pay attention to him if only so we can better counter what his followers try to do.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 9:07am

what an idiotic windbag!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 9:14am

Agreed, with a condition:
I'll agree that digital murders are the same thing as real murders(in which case my body count is easily in the thousands if not hundreds of thousands) if good old Pat here agrees that the opposite is also true, that saving a life digitally is the same as saving one in reality. Because in that case, I've saved towns, cities, planets, and even the galaxy once or twice, so I'd say it about balances out in that case, wouldn't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 9:31am

They should make a game where the player has to say the most stupidly idiotic backwards religious shit. Then Pat can start playing it and stop bugging everyone else, since it's the "same as real life".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob, 6 Aug 2013 @ 10:30am

I'm a saint
if I commit a miracle in a game, I commit a miracle in real life. woo!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DS, 6 Aug 2013 @ 10:31am

Did anyone actually listen to the entire clip, or is it more fun to take things out of context?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- charlie potatoes, 6 Aug 2013 @ 10:46am
  
  Re: Out of context?
  And in exactly what context should the senile ravings of this mean-spirited murderous old charlatan be taken? Not even christians can spin this crazy ass hat's nonsense into gold.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TheOldFart (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 10:38am

Okay, those who laughed their way throught he airport
...in "Carmageddon", please form a line over here. You're all going to hell.

That's it, right over here, next to the lines of people who listened to Rock and Roll music and people who ate meat on Fridays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
charlie potatoes, 6 Aug 2013 @ 10:40am

Wondering why this guy isn't locked away somewhere ...
Makes me wonder what Virtual hell will be like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mrong (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 11:52am
  
  Re: Wondering why this guy isn't locked away somewhere ...
  It's a lot like the virtual boy actually, except with more games.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 10:42am

While I agree with the overall point of this article, the sensationalist tone is way too much for TechDirt.

I really enjoy this site, but Timothy is the worst writer here. It's really a shame, because some of these topics are important, but I really wish they were discussed by the other writers.

If all these are sins equal to their real-life counterparts, there's got to be a terrorist attack or tsunami bearing down on me at this exact moment.

This statement is the epitome of what I mean. What you are talking about here is Karma, which is a concept that doesn't carry over to Christianity. You could argue the whole "reap what you sow" philosophy, but that isn't quite the same as karma.

I certainly wouldn't say that Pat is "willfully ignorant" - at least on this topic. He has his beliefs on the subject, and that is not ignorance. He knows what he is talking about, whether or not you agree with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 11:03am
  
  Re:
  "This statement is the epitome of what I mean. What you are talking about here is Karma, which is a concept that doesn't carry over to Christianity."
  
  I'm not commenting on actual Christianity, only Robertson's view of it. He's said in the past that terrorist acts and natural disasters are due to sinful actions. Seems like my line was perfectly on point.
  
  "I certainly wouldn't say that Pat is "willfully ignorant" - at least on this topic. He has his beliefs on the subject, and that is not ignorance. He knows what he is talking about, whether or not you agree with it."
  
  He's commenting on video games without having EVER played one by choice. How is that not willfully ignorant?
  
  "I really enjoy this site, but Timothy is the worst writer here."
  
  I really enjoy the comments section, but you're the worst commenter here....by, like, a lot....and I'm including the trolls in this assessment....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 12:04pm
  
  Re:
  It's not Karma, it's God punishing bad behavior, which carries over to Christianity directly and has several direct and obvious examples in the bible. Think Sodom and Gamora, or the Apostles dusting off their shoes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 12:11pm
    
    Re: Re:
    In Christianity, God doesn't "punish bad behavior" by creating some terrible event in your mortal life. He punishes you with hell. This is a very different concept. Sure there, are examples of it in the Bible. The thing is, though, that Christianity centers on Jesus and being forgiven for sins. Consequences aren't the same in Christianity as they are in Juddaism.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - crade (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 12:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Well that just isn't true.. God clearly punishes people in worldly ways all over the place in the Bible. The new testiment adds the concept of punishment through hell, but at no point does it make any claims that the whole old testimant is a lie and God never punishes in worldly ways. Well, at least not up until past 2nd corinthians.. I had to set the book aside and calm down a bit after the "woman must have their heads covered and must be silent in church" stuff.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rikuo (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 2:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Gotta agree with you there, God just punishes you to settle a bet with the Devil if you happen to be named Job.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 4:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Gotta agree with you there, God just punishes you to settle a bet with the Devil if you happen to be named Job.
        
        Of course, there is Genesis 13:22-33, where Abraham has a lengthy discussion with God about Sodom and Gomorrah, where Abraham challenges God, asking him if there were 50 (then 45, then 40, then 30, then 20, and then 10) righteous men in Sodom, would God save Sodom. Later God destroys Sodom, only saving Lot (Abraham's son,) and his family (but not his wife because she didn't listen and looked back at Sodom when it was destroyed,) far less than the 10 righteous men he promised he would save Sodom if he found them.
        
        But other than that, the God of the Old Testament only seems to pick on people on a whim.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - crade (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 12:11pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Well maybe not the Apostles, since it is not clear if this will be worldly punishment or post mortem, but there are several other cases where it's clearly worldly
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Wally (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 12:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Funny thing about Karma...is that in a secular format, it's defined as the consequences of the actions you took. Neither good outcomes nor bad outcomes come from good or bad decisions, but consequences are a constant and that's what Karma is. It's not punishment, it's a consequence of certain actions. Some consequences are more painful than others so choose your actions wisely..
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - crade (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 1:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Karma isn't really defined as a consequences of actions. If you jump off a bridge and break your leg, it's not Karma, secular or not. Karma is about retributive justice. Do good and good will come to you, do bad and bad will come to you, but only indirectly, not as a consequence of what you did, but because what you did was good or bad.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 6 Aug 2013 @ 4:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Karma, karma, karma, karma, karma chameleon...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 3:30pm
  
  Re:
  " Timothy is the worst writer here."
  
  Agreed... Tech stories should be boring and devoid of humor. On more than one occasion Mr. Geigner has forced me to elicit a smirk, and this is unforgivable. Not to mention the penis jokes... After a long and hard day, I find techdirt to be a great way to beat the monotony of the daily grind, but many times the thrust of the article is lost due to his juvenile humor.
  
  I was planning on attempting to refute your other claims until I realized your article was parody. You almost had me fooled, but when you said "he knows what he's talking about" I realized my error. Well played, sir, well played.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wolfy, 6 Aug 2013 @ 10:43am

My hats off to whoever it is that sits through all his video to pluck out the real boli from the rest of the sewage he spouts... You, sir or madam, deserve hazard pay as compensation for your efforts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
raindog469 (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 10:48am

Robertson has always been a nut job.
Of course pretending to kill someone isn't actually the same as killing. Even fundamentalist Christian actors make violent action movies, even though acting requires you to actually feel that murderous rage well enough for viewers to believe it from your involuntary responses. Robertson knows this, too. He's gotten way more than his 15 minutes of fame, and is just trying to keep it going until he drops dead.

But a realistically violent game isn't exactly Pong or Space Invaders, either. I always ask my friends who enjoy the bloodier games -- you know, the kind where you see blood splattered on the wall when you make a head shot, and the corpses just lie there on the ground staring at you -- would you play a realistic, graphic rape game too? If not, why is pretending to kill someone more fun than pretending to rape him or her? It's just a game... isn't it?

The first time I was confronted with a situation in a real-looking first-person shooter where I had to take out an American soldier, I realized I don't have it in me to play those anymore, any more than I'd play a game where one of my objectives is to rape someone. And that was a very, very well-reviewed, big-selling game, not some indie morality play that does the festivals and then disappears.

Sure, there are always justifications in the story. Maybe the soldier is part of a vast alien conspiracy trying to blow up the planet. Maybe the target of the rape is possessed by Cthulhu or whatever and it needs to be literally screwed out of him or her (let's be realistic... mainstream game designers being who they are, it would be a her) or else the world is going to end. Either way, I don't have the stomach for it. If you do, good for you... I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 3:09pm
  
  Re: Robertson has always been a nut job.
  Just FYI, the reason is because "pretending to kill people" isn't why people enjoy violent games. Gore is just there for shock appeal like in any movie.
  
  You don't pretend to be mario and jump on turtles or to be a spacesiop and blow people up or whatever in video games, thats just the setting for the game you are playing. Pretending requires you using your own imagination, not just interacting with a game.
  
  In terms of why you wouldn't play a game where the focus was to rape people.. Because it just doesn't provide a decent premise to make a good game.. It's pretty tough to come up with a plausible situation where you need to rape people to save the universe without just coming up with a horrible cheesy porno.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 11:24am

Dark Helmet, you enjoy the comments section because you can come here to circle jerk with everyone else who agrees with you. The moment someone says something dissenting about the article, you think their argument is invalid. If anyone is worse than the trolls, it is you. What gets me the most, is you thought I was replying to one of your posts, when I was solely talking about the article. I hadn't even read any comments when I posted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 11:46am
  
  Re:
  At no point did I think you were replying to a comment. I replied directly to your points in your comment, so I'm not sure what you're talking about....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 11:51am

"The Nazarene as saying that lusting after a woman was the same as committing adultery"

But the Nazarene doesn't say this. He only says you commit adultery in your heart when you do this, and makes no claim as to it being just as bad as doing it in the world. Taken in context, it is clear that Jesus is varying levels of sin, and (and clearly cause her do do so as well, btw, which I found to be the best part)

It is clear that Jesus is giving advice on how to be a virtuous person and not a law to be enforced in any way. Such advice must surely include your thinking as well as your actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
G Thompson (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 11:52am

Yeah over 15,000 Kills on battlefield 3... Cant wait to kill more on Battlefield 4... Am I a bad person????

nah!!!! Noobs deserve death! ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 1:02pm

The Godless amaze me
It amazes me to see the Godless put down Christians in one breath and then complain about human rights, morals and right and wrong in the next breath. If there is no God, there is no right and wrong. Only survival of the fittest. If you are here complaining about your rights being infringed then you are not the fittest. In the no-God world view, you take what you can get away with. Maybe society shuns you, maybe they persecute you, maybe they put you to death. But you, or they, are neither right or wrong as there is no such thing. It would be a man made concept that can change with the times, heck change with the person. Who says what you say is right/wrong is any more right/wrong than what anyone else says? Funny how you never think about that when bashing Christians. Christians can't be in the wrong if there is no such thing now can they?

Fortunately, there is a God and a true right and wrong. Also fortunately we have his true, inspired, inerrant word on what is right and wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 1:38pm
  
  Re: The Godless amaze me
  "If there is no God, there is no right and wrong."
  
  Where in the sweet hell did you get THAT idea? Evolution produces society, which creates rights and wrongs for that society. That's the entire point of Humanism: we have a collective interest in what we've determined to be right and wrong and we insist that our fellow human beings live within that general framework. Morality pre-dates, religion after all.
  
  " In the no-God world view, you take what you can get away with."
  
  Interesting. That must be why there are so many secular and/or atheist charities out there....
  
  "It would be a man made concept that can change with the times, heck change with the person."
  
  You mean like how it EXACTLY works in the world today? Or do you still not where clothing of mixed fabrics?
  
  "Who says what you say is right/wrong is any more right/wrong than what anyone else says?"
  
  Societal norms for the better of human kind says that, obviously.
  
  "Funny how you never think about that when bashing Christians. Christians can't be in the wrong if there is no such thing now can they?"
  
  Oh, but they can, and are. Not always, but sometimes. Just like Jews, Muslims, and atheists too. Everyone is wrong at different times. No biggie, except when you try to take your wrong concepts and force them on someone else.
  
  "Fortunately, there is a God"
  
  Maybe so....
  
  "and a true right and wrong."
  
  Hard to tell, since there's been so many rights and wrongs to choose from. Do we go with the old testament decrees? The new testament decrees? Which branch of Christianity? Mormon? Catholic? Maybe something new age like Scientology. Or hey, maybe the Jews, Muslims, or Hindus have it right, or more right than you. After all, they certainly aren't Godless and they make the same claim to authority you do. But, yeah, you're probably right and they're all wrong. That's way more likely than ALL of you are wrong, right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 1:50pm
    
    Re: Re: The Godless amaze me
    You miss my point about no right or wrong in the Godless world, maybe willfully? Society may say there is a right/wrong but there is no "real" right or wrong. It just shifts like the sand in the wind. So complaining you have the right to send emails, surf the net and make phone calls without the NSA monitoring you is just pissing in the wind. The NSA and the ruling class have more "rights" than you do apparently.
    
    Morality does not pre-date religion. Much of what you are being told about history and evolution is conjecture and unproven theories. Go read Christian science sites to see all the evidence that the bible is right.
    
    Societal norms for the "betterment" of society? Would those be the same ones that kill over a million unborn children every year? I guess you have no rights unless you are just lucky enough to make it out of the womb?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 2:02pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The Godless amaze me
      "It just shifts like the sand in the wind. So complaining you have the right to send emails, surf the net and make phone calls without the NSA monitoring you is just pissing in the wind. The NSA and the ruling class have more "rights" than you do apparently."
      
      And you apparently missed my point, maybe willfully? The judge of right and wrong is the population under the question. The NSA may have the ability to monitor my communications, but that doesn't make it "right". In fact, we know it is wrong, because of the majority backlash against it by the American people. In America, Orwellian oversight by the NSA is wrong. Interestingly, Orwellian oversight by a cellestial dictator is NOT wrong where Christianity is concerned.
      
      "Morality does not pre-date religion."
      
      Of course it does. Take the 10 commandments. One of them is "do not murder". The story (disproven by archeology) says that Moses handed that commandment down from God during the exodus. Do you REALLY think the Jewish people could have even made it to that sermon if they were under the impression that murder was okay? Morality is inate, not prescribed by a deity or religion.
      
      "Much of what you are being told about history and evolution is conjecture and unproven theories."
      
      Not sure what history you're referring to, but evolution is an established natural occurrence that is undisputed by the general scientific community. Please tell me you aren't one of those "the earth is 10k years old" people....
      
      "Go read Christian science sites to see all the evidence that the bible is right."
      
      I'm familiar with Christian science and why that is a misnomer....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 2:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The Godless amaze me
        Is the judge of right and wrong the same society that gasped in disbelief when they found out in the late 70's that the Chinese killed baby girls in order to have boys? Is this the same society that celebrates Roe v. Wade?
        
        Is this the society that is split down the middle politically? Is this the society that is split on the Treyvon vs. Zimmerman verdict? Is this the society that says drugs are bad and thus illegal, yet a large percentage of the population does drugs?
        
        Is society just the US, North America or the world as a whole? Seems much of the world thinks killing others not of their faith is ok; who are we to say they are wrong? Why are we trying to force our views on the rest of the world? According to your earlier statement, we should not.
        
        Seems society can't quite figure out what is right and wrong within one nation much less across nations.
        
        Would you say that slavery was ok since society held that it was ok at the time? I am looking forward to your answer here as you lose either way you answer. To say yes says you think slavery is fine if others think it is fine. That makes you a racist. To say no implies you believe in a greater right and wrong that transcends time.
        
        And that is exactly my point. People, knowingly or not, believe there is a right and wrong that transcends themselves, society and time. There can be no such thing without God.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 2:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Godless amaze me
        You do realise that the Abrahamic faith you hold so dear once not only legalised but endorsed the very slavery you now condemn, I hope? (In case you don't know what you mean, Abrahamic means one of the three faiths - Christianity, Judaism, or Islam - that have their roots in the same patriarch, Abraham). Your religion, as endorsed by God, embraced slavery, held it to be just and good.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 3:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Godless amaze me
        "You do realise that the Abrahamic faith you hold so dear once not only legalised but endorsed the very slavery you now condemn, I hope? "
        
        Yes, and that was his judgement on those people at that time. It may also be that he allowed it but did not condone it. Jesus was asked why Moses permitted divorce and his answer was that it was permitted because the people were weak and would do it anyway, but that is now how it was suppose to be.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 2:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Godless amaze me
        "Would you say that slavery was ok since society held that it was ok at the time? I am looking forward to your answer here as you lose either way you answer."
        
        Oooh, poor choice of tactic, my friend. Would YOU say slavery is okay? After all, it was your bible that was used to justify it and many church leaders, including the Papacy, were either in support of slavery or ambiguous on it.
        
        All you've proven is that morality is currently in flux. Of course we don't limit our scope to America, nor do we export American morality onto other free peoples in other nations in general. However, we have agreed as a human population on some human rights and morals and we should enforce them. Other religions murdering people who are of another faith? That's wrong, as judged by the majority of humanity, as evidenced by several UN decisions. Try again.
        
        "To say no implies you believe in a greater right and wrong that transcends time. "
        
        Nonsense. Slavery is wrong and that judgement by me is in line with the majority of human beings. Perfectly in line with my philosophy.
        
        "People, knowingly or not, believe there is a right and wrong that transcends themselves, society and time."
        
        Sure, there are general societal rules of a human population the vast majority can agree on. You shouldn't murder people is one of those, for instance.
        
        "There can be no such thing without God."
        
        You've done nothing to demonstrate why that must be true. Why can murder not be wrong without a God to say so. Put another way, since you're of the faith, you're suggesting that if God was taken away from you, you would suddenly go out murdering people? Do you really think that little of yourself?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 2:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Godless amaze me
        People can use anything to justify anything, doesn't make it right.
        
        So the UN is the majority of people? Give me numbers here. There are somewhere around 1.5 to 2 billion muslims and 1 billion Chinese so half the world thinks it is ok to kill newborn girls and people of other faith. Many, many people here and around the world think it is ok to kill unborn children. So no, most of the world does not agree on what is and what isn't murder.
        
        "Nonsense. Slavery is wrong and that judgement by me is in line with the majority of human beings. Perfectly in line with my philosophy."
        
        I see you didn't back up how slavery can be "wrong" when "wrong" is defined by a society. Slavery being wrong cannot transcend time if it is up to society at any given time. You also say it is wrong according to the majority of humans yet I have heard there are more people in slavery today than at any other time in history. Seems many, many people disagree with you.
        
        "Sure, there are general societal rules of a human population the vast majority can agree on. You shouldn't murder people is one of those, for instance."
        
        Does this include the unborn? Infant girls?
        
        You surely see that you have contradiction in your own beliefs, though you are unwilling to admit it. Your own statements show you believe in a transcendent right and wrong.
        
        "Do you really think that little of yourself?"
        
        No I don't. I do realize though, that without God I might very well follow society, whichever society I happen to live in, and do things I wouldn't do as a child of God.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 8:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Godless amaze me
        I see you've lumped all Muslims together like you probably claim everyone lumps all Christians together. Believe it or not, the bulk of Muslims are not the radical 'kill everyone of other faith' people you claim. You aren't very educated outside of your indoctrination, are you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The Godless amaze me
        Yes, of course morality predates religion. And this should be especially obvious to Christians. Judaism did not really exist until after Abraham, yet there was morality before that.
        
        "Interestingly, Orwellian oversight by a cellestial dictator is NOT wrong where Christianity is concerned."
        
        It isn't wrong if you have 100% assurance that the dictator is, and will always be, benevolent. It would be extremely foolish to assume that the NSA, or any human individual or group, can fulfill that.
        
        "The judge of right and wrong is the population under the question."
        
        So gay marriage (for example) is wrong if and only if the population says it is wrong? I'm misunderstanding something here, right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 9:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Godless amaze me
        It isn't wrong if you have 100% assurance that the dictator is, and will always be, benevolent.
        
        Okay, you get a funny vote for that.
        
        In the bible, how many people is god supposed to have killed, either directly, or by ordering it done?
        
        You're talking about an individual that orders the massacre of entire peoples/tribes because they offend him, or worship the wrong god(same thing to a jealous deity though I suppose), or happen to live in a spot that his followers want(or that has been 'promised them').
        
        An individual who killed, by drowning no less, every man, woman, child and animal other than the small number located on a boat, simply because they made him angry.
        
        An individual who killed every firstborn in an entire country to show off.
        
        An individual who ordered a human sacrifice, of a man's own son no less, just as a test to see if the man would do it(which you'd think he's of already known, given the 'all knowing' bit religious individuals attribute to him).
        
        And so many other atrocious acts of behavior...
        
        There are many titles and descriptions one could apply to the christian god as depicted in the bible, but 'benevolent' is most certainly not one of them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 10:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Godless amaze me
        So you blindly attack the what it literally says and refuse to think about the subtext in a subjective manner to prove all Christians are ludicrous for their beliefs? Other religions do the same thing and yet Christianity seems to be the target. I'm sorry I just don't see the logic in arguing against a religion based on cherry picked sections of the Bible you fail to understand that others interpret things differently from one another.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 11:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Godless amaze me
        Right, this is probably going to sound condescending, and for that I apologize, as it's not my intention, but you need to take a breath, calm down, and not attribute things to me that I didn't say.
        
        I critiqued the christian god because that's the one that was brought up, simple as that.
        
        I said nothing about the followers of the christian religion(most of which I don't have a problem with, until or unless they start mucking around in secular affairs/laws), I merely pointed out the clash between the characterization of the christian god as 'benevolent', which the AC seemed to be suggesting, as opposed to how the bible depicts him, which is anything but.
        
        Also, literally or otherwise, how were any of the acts I mentioned even remotely resembling indications of benevolence?
        
        How is a story about drowning all life on the planet other than a handful of people and animals an indicator of kindness?
        
        How is a story about someone being asked to murder their own son(and incidentally not seeing anything wrong with that), for no other reason than to perform a completely pointless test showing a benevolent individual?
        
        How is a story about the massacre of 3,000 men, women and children, a massacre brought about by simple jealousy, showing a 'forgiving' being?
        
        You say I'm cherry picking(and I was only to the extent of pointing out evidence contrary to the claim being made), but how can any of the horrid, blood-soaked, and down right atrocious actions attributed to the god of the chrisitian bible possibly be considered indicators of benevolence?
        
        Whether read literally or as metaphors, those stories depict an individual that is very much not 'guaranteed 100% to be, and always remain, benevolent'.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rikuo (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 2:37pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The Godless amaze me
      "Go read Christian science"
      
      I'm sorry but did you just put those two words together in the same sentence without mentioning how they're contradictory?
      Let me spell it out for you. Christianity (or any religion for that matter) forms a conclusion FIRST and then says to it's "scientists" to go look for evidence to prove them right, meaning that any evidence that proves them wrong will be ignored.
      Real scientists on the other hand study evidence first and AFTERWARD form a conclusion based on that research.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wally (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 10:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The Godless amaze me
        Should be noted that it doesn't mean Christians cannot be Scientists...Sir Isaac Newton and Marie Curie happen to be two of my favorites :-3
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 2:51pm
  
  Good Lord, MAKE IT STOP...
  https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unspoken, 6 Aug 2013 @ 1:53pm

Well...
While I do not agree with Mr. Robertson that sin in a game equals sin in real life, several of the comments made by the poster were mostly made in ignorance. The "groanings of the earth", namely, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc..., are indeed created from sin. The reason they have gotten worse over time is due to man continually falling farther from God. The millions of people living in sin cause more than we realize. The Bible speaks to this and it was written thousands of years ago. Much of what is going on in the world today was prophesied long before technology that we know existed. Including the wars of countries that didn't exist. I don't care if you don't believe me... I only hope that one or two take notice. It's real. Just because a man with faults has the guts to say it on live TV and be ridiculed by the world doesn't make it any less true. The truth is still the truth. All will come to know it eventually. Back to the main point, video games glorify sin and desensitize us to it... therefore making it easier to sin. Are video games sin? I don't think so. But they do not help the problems in our world get better. They do the opposite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 2:08pm
  
  Re: Well...
  Good point about the prophecy. The bible, and Christianity, is the only religion with prophecy that has come true. That can only be because the author of the future is also the author of the bible. Jesus fulfilled several hundred prophecies, especially from the book of Isaiah which the earliest known copy was part of the Dead Sea scrolls which pre-date Jesus by 100 years.
  
  This goes to my earlier point that much of what "science" teaches is just unproven theories and there is as much or more proof that the biblical story is true.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 2:13pm
    
    Re: Re: Well...
    "The bible, and Christianity, is the only religion with prophecy that has come true."
    
    I'd honestly like to hear some of these prophecies Christianity predicted that came true. Care to quote them?
    
    "Jesus fulfilled several hundred prophecies, especially from the book of Isaiah which the earliest known copy was part of the Dead Sea scrolls which pre-date Jesus by 100 years."
    
    Not the same thing. Jesus, should he have existed in the form described by the bible, would have known about the prophecies of the time and would have taken the actions required to fulfill them. That's no trick, unless you count miracles which aren't verfied.
    
    "there is as much or more proof that the biblical story is true."
    
    Please. Give me some elements of the bible that are "proven" true. I can certainly give you some that have been proven FALSE, such as the exodus....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 2:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Well...
      "I'd honestly like to hear some of these prophecies Christianity predicted that came true. Care to quote them?"
      
      Ever heard of Google?
      
      "Not the same thing. Jesus, should he have existed in the form described by the bible, would have known about the prophecies of the time and would have taken the actions required to fulfill them. That's no trick, unless you count miracles which aren't verfied."
      
      So Jesus made sure he was born in Nazareth? He made sure that he was born in the line of David? These are just a couple of the scriptures he fulfilled that he could not have "made sure" of.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dark Helmet (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 2:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
        "So Jesus made sure he was born in Nazareth? He made sure that he was born in the line of David? These are just a couple of the scriptures he fulfilled that he could not have "made sure" of."
        
        Don't be daft. I'm saying that Jesus, either finding that he fulfilled those two requirements or else being prodded by others, then sought out to fulfill the rest. You do realize that others must have been born in Nazareth and of the line of David, right?
        
        Give me a prediction the bible made that has come true in a verifiable way. I.E., if the bible predicted that on 9/11/2001, New York would be attacked, you'd have a point. I don't expect THAT prediction, but give me something in that ilk and I'll concede you have a point.
        
        In other words, give me something verifiable. Recall that you are the one that used the word "proven" to describe biblical claims. Show me some proof.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 3:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
        "Don't be daft. I'm saying that Jesus, either finding that he fulfilled those two requirements or else being prodded by others, then sought out to fulfill the rest. "
        
        So you think he could fulfill 300+ prophecies either by accident or on purpose? And have a host of others help him in his deception?
        
        "You do realize that others must have been born in Nazareth and of the line of David, right?"
        
        Yes and they fulfilled very, very few prophecies and thus could not be the Son of God.
        
        I have already given you proof. Scripture dating long before Jesus was born gave over 300 prophecies about the Messiah and he fulfilled them. It wasn't just that he fulfilled them either, it was when he fulfilled them. The timeframe given was fulfilled by Jesus perfectly.
        
        Also, most scholars do not dispute the Jesus was a real person. They don't dispute the scriptures are older than Him. What they do dispute is that there is a God.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 3:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
        "Also, most scholars do not dispute the Jesus was a real person. They don't dispute the scriptures are older than Him. What they do dispute is that there is a God."
        
        No, they dispute the authenticity of the four main books of the New Testament - the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which were not written by Jesus, or by those who directly knew Jesus, but were instead written many decades afterwards, making them secondary sources, with no primary sources to verify them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 4:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
        I think it was Luke that was the physician of the bunch if I recall correctly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 4:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
        And that has what to do with anything?
        
        Here's how the problem of the Gospels falls short. Let's say I sit down right now and write out a 100 page book on the life history of say...Hitler, a guy who died 68 years ago, based on what I remember from school and from asking people around me. I then go and publish it, but lo and behold, it'll more than likely be chock full of errors. But wait...how can people determine if my book is full of errors. Because readers can check my work against better works, against sources written closer to the time of Hitler. There's thousands of other books written about Hitler, plenty of works verified to be written by him and by his associates.
        Now we come to the Gospels. They are the exact same thing as my 100 page book. They were written by someone (no-one knows who) who had been told a life story about this guy Jesus, written decades after he died. Plenty of time for errors to creep into the oral stories that would be passed around. However, when it comes to verifying the authenticity of what the Gospels say...we fall flat. There's nothing written by Jesus, nothing written by his closest associates (the Apostles) that if they had been written, has survived to the present day. The Gospels are secondary sources that are not to be trusted as to their authenticity. How have you determined that they are true?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 3:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
        I also must point you to this
        http://www.aish.com/jw/s/48892792.html
        
        It explains the many prophecies that the man Jesus Christ didn't fulfill.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 4:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
        I will check into those, but I would guess that those prophecies will be fulfilled in Revelations. Did they say when he would fulfill them or just that he would? Because he is still alive and well and will be back during Revelations.
        
        It does say he would gather the Jews back to Israel. Elsewhere in the bible it asks if a nation can be built in a day. Yet it was when Israel was re-formed in 1947 or 48. And the jews have gone back in droves. So maybe that scripture is being fulfilled before our eyes?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 4:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
        "So maybe that scripture is being fulfilled before our eyes?"
        
        Possible, but Occam's Razor suggests it's far more likely that this is happening BECAUSE people already know the prophecy and are seeking to fulfill it. That is demonstrably the case with a good portion of Christians and Jews concerning Israel, in that they are specifically attempting to bring on the apocalypse. You did know that, right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 4:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
        That would mean then the only good prophecy is an unknown one. Hell, Dark Helmet, you should read the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind - the protagonist, Richard, takes a pretty dim view of prophecy and hates even hearing them, even though he sorta ends up fulfilling them anyway (the weird thing is, that the actions he takes would have been different if he had known of, paid attention to and tried to follow the prophecies as they were written).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 4:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
        Pretty sure plenty of other nations have been built "in a day" as well...are we talking about the day of the declaration that Country X is now founded, or are you now going to say that on the day of the declaration of Israel's independence, most if not all the world's population of Jews found themselves inside Israel, instead of over the course of months and years, as would logically have to happen?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rikuo (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 2:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
        Is there a birth cert to prove that the man who thirty years later went around with a large following was born in Nazareth? Is there undeniable proof that he was of the line of David, or did Joseph just say he was, or believed he was because he was told so? I too can say I'm descended from a line of great kings from centuries past, but if I do so, people would naturally want me to prove it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 6 Aug 2013 @ 10:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
        Not sure on the line of David...but yes...the Romans, as you forget, collect taxes....and that's how they got their census....when census was called in Ancient Rome...you hauled your family back to your place of birth. They fled to Egypt (King Harrods' decree about killing newborns...that was found too)...and returned to the Roman Empire by the time Jesus was 4.
        
        I might not know about biblical history....but I do know how Ancient Rome was run. Census was a big deal.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 12:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
        Yes, Joseph hauled his family back to Bethlehem. Doesn't exactly offer conclusive evidence that he is of a line of kings. What if the British government were to impose a similar movement of people, would you then believe anyone having to go to London when they say they're descended from the British Royal family?
        Basically, what I'm asking for in terms of proof would be DNA testing, but that can't be done. There's no body to be tested, and thus, the claims of royal descent cannot be verified. Even if Joseph was...the fact that he isn't Jesus's father destroys any claim Jesus has to the line of David.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 8 Aug 2013 @ 1:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
        "Basically, what I'm asking for in terms of proof would be DNA testing, but that can't be done. "
        
        If we can clone Neanderthal man (which predates Christendom by oh some 100,000 or more years) from fossilized teeth, we could definitely do the paternal testing. The issue is not really finding the bones in question (holy relics of the Catholic Church)...the issue is destroying someone's sacred object which they hold holy. The Shroud of Torrin gives us a fairly accurate portrait of Jesus and there is a lot of evidence that road spikes went through his hands (note that would normally completely tear off the bones and ligaments so they nailed his feat and tied his arms up above and behind his shoulders...well you get the picture...slow death)...anyway tangent aside, you are right, it would be very difficult to get a paternal test of King David and Joseph...the former we haven't found the latter is art of a holy relic that probably out of respect, should not be destroyed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 8 Aug 2013 @ 5:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
        I'm afraid The Shroud of Turin might not be that useful either, given it's authenticity(namely date of creation) is still up for debate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TheOldFart (profile), 8 Aug 2013 @ 5:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
        No, it's not up for debate.
        
        From wikipedia:
        
        Tucson: 646 � 31 years;
        Oxford: 750 � 30 years,
        Zurich: 676 � 24 years old
        
        Even before that was done it was known that it was likely a medieval fake ever since it was first presented.
        
        After the dating there is no room for doubt, except in the minds of people who PT Barnum associates with a brief interval of time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Antonymous, 6 Aug 2013 @ 3:16pm

Credit me for my kills
So if killing people in video games counts as murder, I think the number of Godless terrorists, Nazis and alien invaders I've killed who were all bent on killing innocenets and taking over the world should be added to my tally in St. Pete's book-keeping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 3:46pm

Surprisingly
This is the most rational and reasonable thing that Pat Robertson has ever said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 6 Aug 2013 @ 4:17pm

Pat Robertson is a phony and has zero credibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2013 @ 7:03pm

Robertson's existence is a sin on numerous levels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2013 @ 10:24am

Wow... If that's true, the casualties on both world wars are infimal numbers if we look at how many i had killed...

In Dynasty Warriors it is easy to kill a thousand in a single level! And i played every Dynasty warriors game since 4 (8 was launched last month). I am not even going to talk about my (mis)adventures in GTA, mass effect and every RPG game out there...

Seriously guys, don't take this person seriously. I am a Christian and i play every kind of violent game you can imagine. And no, i am not going to hell because of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2013 @ 10:39am

I wonder if shooting demons, killing demons and storming the gates of hell itself in Doom will make me a holy warrior in his view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 7 Aug 2013 @ 4:51pm

And just in time for the release of the atheist video game sequel EJZ 2
Link: https://plus.google.com/106372256726090171588/posts#106372256726090171588/posts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TheOldFart (profile), 8 Aug 2013 @ 6:03pm

Anyone any good at writing simple game apps?
I'm thinking that a Sim Abortion Doctor could just put ol' Patsy in the grave.

When that happy day comes, the Onion will have to re-use the headline they had for Reagan: "Robertson's Body Dies"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
✠, 15 Aug 2013 @ 6:17am

Unfulfilled prophecies
Amongst his other accomplishments was incorrectly predicting the end of the world in 1982
You may say to yourselves, �How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?� If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed. � Deuteronomy 18:21-22
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grimmjow swaggerjaquez, 18 Feb 2016 @ 12:07am

Patrick
Don't pay this load of anal sauce any attention, he's a fucking lunatic. He thinks mr Bowie, aka David motherfucking Bowie deserves to be in hell. Fuck pat, he's so delusional, he makes fucking buzz light year in toy story 1 blush, this pile of shit stains likes to hate on gays, well, let them teach you how to fucking live!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
joe, 18 Dec 2019 @ 10:13am

ruler
Christians, Buddhists, Hindi's, Muslims, Jews should fight it out to the last man or women standing, then that one person can rule the world for ever and ever,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]

As Russia Expands Its 'Think Of The Children' Laws To Copyright, Agency In Charge Investigated For Infringement

Comcast NBC Universal Already Moving Past Six Strikes; Trying New Malware Popups Urging Downloaders To Buy

Follow Techdirt

Essential Reading

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Read the latest posts:

read all »

Techdirt Deals

Report this ad | Hide Techdirt ads

Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Friday
19:39	Important Announcement: Techdirt Is Migrating To A New Platform (0)

Pat Robertson: Murder Committed In Video Games Is No Different Than Real Life Murder

from the everyone-is-going-to-hell dept

Reader Comments

Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Re:

Why would anyone care?

Re: Why would anyone care?

Re: Why would anyone care?

Re: Why would anyone care?

Re: Why would anyone care?

Re: Re: Why would anyone care?

Re:

Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Sorry late to the party

Re: Sorry late to the party

Re: Re: Sorry late to the party

Reply from one of the ignorant ignoramuses

THERE IS ONLY ONE LOGICAL RESPONSE TO THIS.

"sins"

Re: "sins"

Re: Re: "sins"

Re: Re: "sins"

Re: Re: Re: "sins"

Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins" Schooled in Style...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "sins"