We do reap what we sew, but if all we need is God's forgiveness, and not necessarily the forgiveness of those we hurt, then that is an unethical view. This does not bestow a sense of personal responsibility. Doctrine teaches that as long as we get God's "thunbs up", then it doesnt matter that we have hurt others or that we even should seek their forgiveness. Nobody has to "take God off and put God back on" because the message is as long as we feel guilt, all we do is ask God for forgiveness and thats the end of it.

I am an atheist. I look at religion from a logical perspective. Christianity is a religion that has its doctrines translated from dead languages to other dead languages, to other dead languages, then translated for monarchs of time periods to fit their rules and views to subjugate the non-nobility, then translated some more. Christianity is a religion filled with irreconcilable contradictions. The Virgin Mary, being one. There was no mention of the Virgin Mary in old transcripts until over 300 years after the death of Jesus (342 A.D.). There are so many stories similar to the birth and life of Jesus a few thousand years before his birth (i.e. Horus). The resurrection is supposed to be the truest sign that he is the son of God, but yet, in Christian doctrine, Lazarus rose from the dead, all the graves of Nazareth opened and the dead rose and greeted those they were close to in life, so doesn't that kind of take away from the resurrection of Jesus? By Christian definition, they would be the Sons and Daughters of God also, and thus God themselves, to be able to transcend death in the same manner in which Jesus did. And alas, many people claim that this country was founded on Christianity. Many of the founding fathers were against Christianity and religion altogether. Even Thomas Jefferson, one of the most popular founding fathers, took the New Testament, took out the portions of Jesus performing miracles and about his speaking of God, and formed a book called "The Ethical Teachings of Jesus Christ". Jesus was believed to be a good ethical teacher, but this country was not founded as a Christian country, despite how hard Fox News may claim it to be. We call ourselves a Christian Nation, which is perverse. Many take from the Constitution, but only segments. The separation of church and state was placed in it for a reason. Religious views should have no place in regards to the secular, for the illogic should not overtake the logical. From an ethical and scientific viewpoint, Christianity doesnt hold up much. The gospels were taken not from eye witnesses, but a few decades after the death of Jesus, to recount his lifes works. So its not based on eye witnesses, but people who heard it from someone who heard it from someone. My personal view is that gossip a lot of times tends to be not so accurate, especially 20 or 30 years down the road.

I will call anyone who agrees with the former policy this because these "christians" forgot one of their most core values, "to love thine enemy and when attacked to turn the other cheek".


I agree with all but the last line. We only have two cheeks, we are at some point supposed to learn instead of continuing to volunteer to be slapped,,and that lesson doesnt apply to self defense(although self defense is more of an IN the moment action than a plotted and planned invasion).

The point of turning the other cheek is that we dont allow ourselves to be constantly "slapped", but not to seek retaliation or revenge. In the words of Ghandi, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." This is simply another way of putting it.

Gods forgiveness does not relieve us of asking for forgiveness from the person(s) we have hurt or offended. These are 2 totally different
aspects. God forgives us when we ask with a humble heart, ready to turn away from the action and live differently (repent).
Asking the people we have hurt shows true remorse, though it can never undo what was done, or the consequences, it is the first step towards healing. In fact we are instructed to go to those we have hurt and ask their forgiveness. Whether they do or not is irrelevant,
Because God forgives unconditionally.


But doesnt those last two sentences kind of negate everything else beforehand? Whether they do or not is irrelevant. Because God forgives unconditionally. If its irrelevant, then is there truly a point in seeking redemption from those we hurt? If its irrelevant, then the rest is redundant with the belief system.



Jesus came to die for our sin- not that we could not accept responsibility for our actions- infact when we ask for forgiveness we do just the opposite- you have to admit you have done something wrong to realize you need to be forgiven in the first place.


But for someone else to die for one's sins, that is scapegoating. I admit, I have committed wrongs, but I have never looked to someone else to fix it for me, I did it myself. I have taken the personal responsibility, not looked to a "savior" to handle it for me.


There is no dictatorship, God gives us free will. We can choose to love him or not. Just like you choose to love a girlfriend.

Thats the thing, it is totalitarianistic. If you dont do all God says, youll just burn for all eternity. If you choose not to follow, youll burn for all eternity. Either accept it or enjoy eternal suffering. This is the mindset of any totalitarian dictatorship.

So, since theres a pretty big response, I will just address a list in this field.

1) A basic fundamental of Christianity teaches to do good things so youll go to heaven. This is a mindset in which Christianity openly beats into peoples heads. It is this fundamental belief which takes away from good deeds, and turns them to things done out of selfish desire. Also, for anyone that would make ammends with one they wronged because of their faith, it is unethical. One makes ammends with another because their moral compass dictates that it is the right thing to do, not to get on the good graces of God.

2)In a person that is wronged, for them to be the one to make amends, that also robs the transgressor of personal responsibility. Encouraging the individual to take responibility is beneficial. Also, you are right, you dont throw your child out. You show the child that the action was wrong, and the child asks forgiveness. Even in a parent/child relationship, the transgressor takes personal responsibility in making amends with the transgressee.

3)Thou shalt not covet a neighbors possessions. This is one of the best examples of a thought-crime. One of the ten commandments, but a person doesnt have to take action to violate. It is one of the purest examples of a thought-crime. This commandment is bogus anyway. In the words of George Carlin, "Without coveting a persons possession, there would be no economy. You see Bob has a boat, and you want to get a bigger boat than Bob's." Also, one of the biggest driving forces in Christianity, in regards to conscience, which is pummeled into youths at a young age would be to absolve your wrongs with God, as not to burn in Hell. It is this driving force within the Christian conscience that motivates a person to do good deeds and veer away from committing wrongs, because the moral compass is based on a Pass-Fail method.

How am I wrong? There have been many instances where, in a situation of a death row inmate, the man or woman would do their best to ask for the familys forgiveness. In some situations, the individual was not able to earn their forgiveness, but in a lot of circumstances, the individual was able to attain the forgiveness of the family. So, to say that attempting to show the family true remorse and earn their forgiveness is simply in vain, is assenine. When a person has the thought that they can do whatever they want simply because all they have to do is pray or that they are in God's favor, they are categorized in two groups. The first would be sociopaths, and the second is psychopaths. A mental disorder can be the cause, and so can religion. Even with the point of being in Afganistan, or Iraq, we are supposed to be there to "fight ISLAMIC terrorists." If you feel we are right for being there because we should kill the ISLAMIC terrorists, then you are either a sociopath or a psychopath. They are terrorists. So, if you feel we are right because as a Christian nation, its our duty to kill the Islamic radicals, then you are simply a sociopath or psychopath caused by religion. By calling it a "Christian nation fighting Islamic insurgents" there is such arrogance associated with that view, of a religious superiority. I will call anyone who agrees with the former policy this because these "christians" forgot one of their most core values, "to love thine enemy and when attacked to turn the other cheek".

Christianity teaches that one only need God's forgiveness, not to make amends with the person or persons one's actions inflicted pain upon. So, as long as a thief has God's forgiveness, he should not attempt to repay the individual in which he stole from? Personal responsibility is not just making sure the transgression does not occur again, but is also to make amends for the transgression which occurred. If a person steals money from another person, and that money would be used for that person's welfare, does prayer simply absolve it all? The other individual is still at a loss. Personal responsibility would be making amends with the individual hurt by one's actions. To love your neighbor as you would love yourself is impossible. You will always have problems with at least one individual that are irreconcilable. This makes it impossible. One of the biggest examples would be 9/11. Can you say honestly, that in your heart, you forgive those men that hijacked the planes and crashed them? To love thine enemy and turn the other cheek plays into this as well. It is a fundamental of Christianity that when sins are committed, that we lose face in the eyes of God. People do good things out of this sadomasochist relationship. People do good things in the hope that when they die, they will be rewarded, and if they dont, they will suffer eternally. When a sin is committed, we pray for forgiveness to "escape the fate of damnation." The difference between a democracy and a totalitarianship is that in a democracy you can not be convicted for a thought-crime. In the eyes of God, you can easily be convicted and condemned for a thought-crime, same as in a totalitarian government. We are supposed to stand before God in judgement with the ability to appeal simply because Jesus was killed. This is similar to the barbaric practices of killing animals and offering human sacrifices to be absolved, or at least have the opportunity to be. Christ was a good moral teacher, I agree, but the sheer arrogance that you dont have to right your wrongs to your transgressees, as long as you "ask me for forgiveness and promise not to do it again" is totally unethical.

The definition of vicarious redemption, which is one of the primary principles of Christianity, is for someone to serve a punishment for another. In a large sense, it is the same with sacrificing animals and such, as in the Old Testament. This is unethical because it takes away personal responsibility. For an individual to take peoples sins upon himself so that they attain "forgiveness", then what is the point of any individual to right any wrongs towards any individuals they have hurt when all that is needed is a guilty conscience and to simply pray? This does not heal any transgression felt by anyone that this person hurt. An example would be an inmate on death row for murder. If a man asks God for forgiveness, then has he no need to ask the family the one he murdered for forgiveness? Vicarious redemption robs individuals of personal responsibility in regards to righting their transgressions towards their fellow man. Sacrificing animals is the same thing. By a life being taken, their transgressions towards their fellow man are forgiven. Any individual that would say "Do not seek the forgiveness of the person you have injured, for all you need is mine," is a callous person, to be so bold as to give that message. Simply put, Christianity does illustrate some excellent morals, but at the same time, it robs of morals also.

One of the primary foundations of Christianity is immoral, and this would be vicarious redemption, where you can throw your sins onto someone elses shouders. This is simply one example of scapegoating. When sins are taken away simply through prayer, this takes away personal responsibility, which is perverse and immoral. A man would not need to seek the forgiveness of those he wronged, but all a man need to do is seek the forgiveness of Jesus. In a sense, this robs us somewhat of our ability to love our fellow man, for if we can transgress against others and not need their forgiveness to be absolved of our sins towards them, the only word that comes to mind to describe such an individual that would make this statement would be deranged. Also, christianity teaches us to love our fellow neighbor as we would love ourself, which is impossible, so we are always guilty of this crime. It demeans the term of love by making it a compulsory action. Another example, a God-follower relationship can be called a sadomasochistic relationship. To show absolute love to a being that will show love back until you make a mistake, then once again, you are "a worthless and dirty sinner". The God-follower relationship, by definition, fits the sadomasochistic relationship, which is perverse, unhealthy, and unethical. One more point would be that Christianity is a totalitarian system. If there is a God who could do these things and demand all these things of us, who is eternal and unchanging, we would be living under a dictatorship in which there is no chance for appeal, and one that could never change. One that knows our thoughts and can convict us of thought-crimes, and can condemn us to eternal punishment for actions in which we simply have the urge to take.

-This argument is borrowed from Christopher Hitchens, truly a wise individual.

See, most whimmin are attracted to the ass. I have a hypothesis about this: okay, most whimmin are the types that look in the mirror at their rears to either admire it or to criticize it (come on ladies, you know you've done it). Now, since a lot of them look at asses quite a bit, that is the reason for dating one, its already routine to look at them, but this way, no sore neck! But seriously though, no whimmin want chivalry right off the bat, and i know that there are whimmin that will disagree, but whimmin tend to admire bravado and straightforwardness in men. Whimmin want to instill chivalry in men when its at their convenience, or at least feel like they did or could. Whimmin want men that will treat them like dirt, because when you treat whimmin like dirt, there is no chance the man is faking it, and is honestly one of the most trustworthy people of all. You can always trust an asshole because he wont care what you feel or if it offends you. Most whimmin have trust issues, so that is another reason. Also, look at it like this: if you have two employees, and you have something that you need done, which would you pick? the man that is a "nice guy" and will take others into consideration, or the man that is an ass and doesnt care what he has to do in order to get things done? Now, im not saying that the whimmin are the "employers", that is how you need to see yourself when it comes to them. Its a good view, because, when a woman fills the position, and is done right, it can be very fulfilling, but if your "employee" screws you over to the point where you cant even look at her anymore, the employee is expendable and can be filled by another candidate. I know, that analogy is beautiful. Dont lose the "nice guy" qualities, just put them aside, and be aggressive and get that position filled! Bring out the nice guy stuff later.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg did, and the chicken was pissed.

Its because a woman is a variation of Bob the Builder, well, without the penis, of course. "Can i fix him? Yes I can!" Also, there are women that are drawn to the abuse, the neglect, the lack of respect for many reasons. Some examples would be: to attain the unattainable goal. Women will stick around in the hopes of making the guy change his mind and show respect and compassion. Sure, it normally backfires, or the guy starts to when something drastic happens (albeit, for a short time before falling back into old habits). Now, in some situations, there are guys that dont even realize that they are being neglectful, and when brought up, they can change it. But, it also brings up how when a woman gets it, either one of three things happen: she doesnt know what to do with all the extra attention, she is pushed away by the extra attention since she was used to the lack (the thing of how the chase is much more enjoyable), or she demands more (like anarcha feminism, or femnazi-ism). But in my opinion, its because when it comes down to it, the "bad boys" know what to do to get things done, and will step on some feet to do so. The "bad boy" term is outdated and overused. See, lets say, with whimmin, if one is at the bar in a club, and theres a guy hitting on her and they are talking, and another guy comes up and pulls her out to dance, does that make the latter a "bad boy"? No, it makes him a cockblocker. And besides, who says the "bad boy" is more fun? Getting treated like crap is fun? Sorry, but the nice guy is more prone to make sure you enjoy yourself, not trying to only ensure his good time. If you are with a "nice guy" and you are bored, more than likely you dont voice that to him. So, its not his fault youre bored, its yours for just sitting there and not saying jack. So, in conclusion, 2 points: women that like the "bad boy", go get welcome tattooed on your foreheads, because you're in for a lot of men to walk on you. And second, the reason that chivalry isnt around much at all anymore is because whimmin have unanimously shown that they dont want chivalry, they want to instill it eventually when its convenient.

Theres these parents that have 3 daughters, named Rose, Tulip, and Cinder Block. One day Rose comes up to her father and says, "Dad, why did you name me Rose?" Her father looked at her and said, "The day you were born, a rose came through the window and landed in your crib, and thats how you got your name." One day Tulip went to her dad and asked, "Dad, why did you name me Tulip?" Her father said, "Well, the day you were born, a tulip came through the window and landed in your crib, and that is how you got your name." Then one day, Cinder Block went to her dad and said, "Uhhhhhhhhhhhh."

Okay, first of all, f--k myspace. Second, the information was taken from these peoples site. Third, the only reason the youtube url is used is because its a heck of a lot easier than taking like 15 steps to watch it on their own site, since it sticks with the original url of landofthebanned.com. Yeah, they are pathetic as hell, but when they make a video of them comparing themselves to hitler and all, why shouldnt these r-tards be left to inbreed? Oh yeah, the last url im posting into this matter is simply the article is in regards to this FSU shooting crap. http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/37732099.html
Okay, for anyone that reads that, keep in mind, the scheduled date for the shooting in which this guy claims that they are gonna catch the most people and stuff is on a SUNDAY. First, the dude claims he is a juggalo and all, and for that to be stated the way it is, well...its just not that realistic of a thing (seriously, when reading the writing that was supposed to be the warning, is it just me or does throwing out juggalo like that seem out of place altogether) and no juggalo is gonna go into some mcdonalds bathroom and write it on the wall, the f--ker would straight up do it, no warning. But the only thing that is more retarded than the sloppy threat is the comments from the dumba-- sheeple. Okay, this is the threat, but check it out for yourselves (for credibilities sake), but if you don't, like it affects me.
"I will kill you. You sorry worthless preps, myself and ten juggalo's will enter the library and open fire on any prep's or faculty. The red mist will spray. The bodies will fall." And the message says it will happen February 1st.
But in regards to these J.H. dudes, the info that i discussed is all over their site, hell they even have a recruitment portion for this crap in regards to catching juggalos and juggalettes. Hmmmmmm, comparing themselves prouldly to hitler, already pulling that crap which administrators of that site credit to them and their sheeple, hell, even in a post, theres this little arguement that breaks out between a juggalo and a hater, and this f--kin administrator intervenes and after the f--ker posts he wants to do their dirty work and catch this ninja slipping for their cause and all, the dude tells him that if he wants to help their cause, then lists the steps for how to do so and all, having dudes going to concerts disguised and stuff to start stuff with people that only went there to enjoy the music and all, no, just some kids that are bored and s--t. One last thing dude, if you did all this google stuff, you shouldve seen their official site, and missed it. C'mon, myspace is synonymous with bulls--t, anyone with half a brain knows this. Its credible stuff.

Oh, okay, cool. I really havent used this forum thing much, so now I know, thanks. Okay, well, the first one to show this crap would be a link which is for their specific site. It shows this crap and how they are actually looking for recruits actively and how they are supporting and encouraging more of it. Cant get a specific link, it stays the same as the web address for their hate site. it is www.landofthebanned.com. Okay, now then you go to mission:impeach obama and then you will find posted by this webmaster, buttsecks, the thing entitled
Obama loves Abortion, I'd rather have slaves back
that is the specific name of it. Also, as for most of the stuff in regards to the juggalos and juggalettes, just go to the juggalo holocaust portion. You'll see a lot of it. This is one that addresses the stuff against the juggalos and juggalettes. I gotta comment on this one personally. It is kinda cheesily made, but this is one of the 3 webmasters for this landofthebanned crap. the link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=texHwItaH8o&feature=related

Okay, i'm just gonna put this out there, but I'll post the rest as soon as possible.

The thing is that specific links cant be put up on this, because its considered publicizing websites, but if you want proof, go to google or something and look up juggalo holocaust.

Okay, well, after more research, it came to my attention that there is some serious stuff going down. Okay, there is a hate group out there that calls themselves J.H. It stands for juggalo holocaust. They are a bunch of people that would be defined as preppy and bigots. They are openly posting their hate all over online and out in the world. They have stated that they will try to get Obama out of office, which they make clear in an article of theirs which it called Get Obama Out: Maybe Slavery Wasnt a Bad Thing. One or two words dont match exactly with the name, but that main part is dead on. Okay, they talk about how they will target juggalos and juggalettes and will do whatever to kill people repping psychopathic records or artists from that label. They have gone to concerts and all in facepaint (juggalos and juggalettes will wear facepaint in order to show support for the artists and all) and they will ambush people. It has gotten out of hand severely. There has been members of this group that has shot 20+ people and raped 7 women. Their organization takes full credit for it and openly brags about it, and says it wont stop. They call the artists from psychopathic records bigots, when a lot of stuff dropped by these artists has spoken out against bigotry and abuse against women and children, but they are the ones saying that "slavery wasnt such a bad thing" (and they have the audasoty to clam that they aren't prejudice). Okay, to any juggalos or juggalettes reading this, if you see people with J.H. on their clothing or what not, they have openly stated that this is their mark and also claiming that any person they come across wearing anything that could be related to psychopathic records they will honest to god try to kill on the spot, well, do one of two things:just get the heck outta there (no shame in using nonviolent nethods) or stand your ground. I dont like to encourage violence, but these people have already shown that they are serious about this crap, so do what you need to in order to defend yourselves.There are haters of a lot of things, but these guys are acting like a big hitler army. So, to any juggalos or juggalettes that read this, watch out for these f--ks and MMFWCL, and if any of these J.H. people have something to say on here(you never know), all I gotta say is bring that s--t and we'll bring ours!

Well, I was browsing through some news site stuff, and came across an article about someone that tagged a bathroom wall in regards to a shooting that never happened. It was for a college library to happen on February 1st. Well, it was bull, because, well, February 1st happened to be a Sunday. But what brings up this little blog-esque stuff is that there was a portion for reader comments. Well, there were a lot from a large amount of people. Now, the main focus of it was that it was a race issue. The person that made the threat never mentioned race, but mentioned taking out wealthy kids. It was more of a economical thing, but many made it a race issue. Many people say that we are making progress with Barack Obama in office, but I unfortunately have to disagree. I wish it was the case, but it seems that it brought the bigotry in many out in full light. One person even had the audasity to comment that if slaves were never brought to the U.S., then Obama would never have become president, so everyone should be grateful we had slavery. Now, this is something that I found quite irritating, and I wanted to get some feedback from y'all on this issue.

Seriously? Thats awesome! How'd he pull it off?

? Sorry, I'm kinda confused. The whole campaign thing is based on that instead of the current setup focusing on sating local business owners, to start paying more attention to providing more of a budget to programs that help the community.

But seriously, many people are mad as hell over some stuff with the mayor. The city council here in town wants to change the way a mayor gets placed from elected to appointed. Just one of many examples

Yeah, wouldn't it be great? Lol, the worst possible scenario that I see happening is that I get in, and blow all of the budget on women and gambling! That would be so cool....